JUDGMENT : Mohammad Rafiq, J. 1. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs-appellants assailing the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Bharatpur (for short 'the appellate court') whereby appeal filed by the plaintiffs-appellants has been dismissed, as also the judgment and decree dated 04.10.2013 passed by Additional Civil Judge(JD) No. 1, Bharatpur (for short 'the trial court') whereby civil suit filed by the plaintiffs-appellants for permanent injunction has been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-appellants filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the respondent-defendant with the averments that the respondent published a residential colony namely, Shyama Prashad Mukherjee Nagar with the sanction of the State Government. In the said scheme, Plot No. 195 was shown with measurements of 79 x 89 ft. and it was shown as corner plot. In the south of this plot, Plot No. 194 was shown, as such it is clear that Plot No. 195 was one plot. Plot No. 195 was put to auction on 25.01.2000 wherein measurements were not shown in the map. The plaintiffs-appellants purchased Plot No. 195 in the said auction. It was pleaded in the suit that the defendant has made two plots out of original Plot No. 195 and they are proceeding to sell Plot No. 195-A, which is part of Plot No. 195. Therefore, the plaintiffs-appellants prayed that the respondent-defendant be restrained from selling Plot No. 195-A and they be directed to accept price of the auction for the rest of plot from the plaintiffs-appellants and get registered lease deed of entire Plot No. 195 in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants. 3. The defendant-respondent filed written statement and denied the averments of the plaint. It was the case of the defendant-respondent that they have all the rights to make sub division of the plots and as such, the plaintiffs-appellants have no right to ask the defendant-respondent to allot them the plot of the size they claimed. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed five issues. The plaintiffs-appellants produced Dinesh Bansal as P.W.1 and exhibited eight documents. The defendant-respondent examined Banwari Lal Sharma as D.W.1 and exhibited ten documents. The trial court, after hearing the parties, vide judgment and decree dated 04.10.2013 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs-appellants. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed five issues. The plaintiffs-appellants produced Dinesh Bansal as P.W.1 and exhibited eight documents. The defendant-respondent examined Banwari Lal Sharma as D.W.1 and exhibited ten documents. The trial court, after hearing the parties, vide judgment and decree dated 04.10.2013 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs-appellants. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs-appellants filed appeal before the appellate court which too was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20.11.2014. Hence, the present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs-appellants. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the courts below have failed to appreciate the matter in the correct perspective and proceeded on misconception of facts and law in holding that Plot No. 195 was corner plot and the plaintiffs-appellants purchased the same in auction where for lease deed was also registered in their favour and that the additional land was not part of said plot. In fact, the defendant-respondent made two plots out of one plot, which was notified for auction. In notice published for auction of Plot No. 195, no measurement of that plot was given whereas in the public auction notice, size of the plots is generally shown. The plaintiffs-appellants purchased entire land of Plot No. 195 in auction. The defendant-respondent committed serious illegality in making new Plot No. 195-A out of Plot No. 195. Findings of the learned trial court as also appellate court that the plaintiffs-appellants failed to prove prima facie case and, therefore, not entitled to permanent injunction. Learned counsel referred to auction notice, in which it is clearly mentioned that the disputed plot sought to be auctioned was a corner plot bearing No. 195 and in the lay out plan, its dimension was shown as 89 x 89 ft. Although in the auction notice, correct measurement of Plot No. 195 was not shown because of on going strike of the employees of the defendant-respondent. Yet the fact is that the defendant-respondent definitely sold this Plot No. 195 in auction to the plaintiffs-appellants. Thereafter, they mala fidely carved out another plot bearing No. 195-A out of the land of Plot No. 195 only with a view to depriving the plaintiffs-appellants of their legitimate right to retain the entire plot. Yet the fact is that the defendant-respondent definitely sold this Plot No. 195 in auction to the plaintiffs-appellants. Thereafter, they mala fidely carved out another plot bearing No. 195-A out of the land of Plot No. 195 only with a view to depriving the plaintiffs-appellants of their legitimate right to retain the entire plot. Learned courts below wrongly recorded findings that in the auction bid(Exhibit A-2), if Plot No. 195 is written and measurements have not been written then it would not be held that whatever land was available in the corner plot, the same would be taken as part of the Plot No. 195. There was no question of sub division of plot No. 195 and therefore, the courts below wrongly held that the defendant was having a right to make sub division of plot. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to Exhibit 6, 7 and 8 and argued that it is clear from these documents that Plot No. 195 was auctioned, but due to strike of the employees of the defendant-respondent, actual area of the plot was not shown. When the plaintiffs-appellants learnt about the fact that actual area of the Plot was not just 385.66 sq. yards, but its measurement was 771.67 sq. yards, they insisted on payment of additional lease amount, but the defendant-respondent illegally did not allot the entire land to the plaintiffs-appellants and issued lease deed for only 385.66 sq. yards land and created another plot out of land of Plot No. 195. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants argued that this question was taken in the meeting of Urban Improvement Trust, Bharatpur held on 28.11.2007, proceedings of which are placed on record as Exhibit A-6, wherein it was resolved to allot the entire land to the plaintiffs-appellants by charging value of differential measurement of the land together with interest @ 12% per annum. In fact, the matter was referred to the Government and the Government vide Exhibit-10 dated 19.12.2012 directed the Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust, Bharatpur to take appropriate decision on the basis of State Cabinet Memo dated 03.10.2012, according to which the plaintiffs-appellants were required to pay differential amount of the land together with interest. A communication was again sent by the Government to the Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust, Bharatpur on 15.03.2013. A communication was again sent by the Government to the Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust, Bharatpur on 15.03.2013. Learned counsel referred to Order 12 Rule 6 CPC and argued that since Urban Improvement Trust, Bharatpur itself has admitted entitlement of the plaintiffs-appellants to get the entire land of the corner Plot No. 195, on the basis of decision of Compromise Committee, which was accepted by the Trust vide Exhibit-8 and the Government by order dated 15.03.2013, therefore, sub-division of Plot No. 195 could not have been directed by creating another plot No. 195-A out of it. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-defendant opposed the appeal and submitted that stand of UIT in this matter was quite clear before the courts below. The land was put to auction measuring only 39 x 89 ft. and not 79 x 89 ft. When the auction notice was published, employees of UIT, Bharatpur was on strike and therefore, correct measurement could not be mentioned. In the proceedings of the Trust at Agenda No. 31 it was resolved to charge from the plaintiffs-appellants the price of excess land together with interest. The UIT, Bharatpur was, therefore, estopped from going back from its earlier stand. It is also argued that lease deed of the land measuring 385.66 sq. yards was already executed in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants and was registered before the Sub-Registrar, on which the appellants had availed benefit of concession from the stamp duty as notified by the State Government. Therefore, the plaintiffs-appellants now cannot be allowed to say that in fact, land measuring 79 x 89 ft. should have been registered in their favour. It is submitted that the Government, thereafter, directed that the remaining land be again put to auction as Plot No. 195-A. The present appeal does not raise any substantial question of law and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned judgments and decrees, it is evident that plot size in Exhibit-1, site plan has been mentioned as 79 x 89 ft., but when the auction proceedings took place on 25.01.2000, in Exhibit-2, bid sheet of the auction, which has been signed by Yogesh Chand on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants, size of the plot No. 195 was clearly mentioned as 385.66 sq. yards. yards. It is, therefore, clear that originally plot No. 195 in the size of 771.67 yards was not put to auction. In fact, lease deed that was executed in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants by UIT, Bharatpur on 24.03.2001, measurement of the plot has been indicated to be 385.66 sq. yards in the size of 39 x 89 sq. ft. It is true that in the proceedings dated 28.11.2007, Compromise Committee recommended for allotment of the entire land and the UIT, Bharatpur in its proceedings dated 23.04.2008(Exhibit-8) also agreed to make allotment of remaining land to the appellant on differential amount of price together with interest, but when the plaintiffs-appellants have taken part in auction proceedings for only 385.66 sq. yards of land and on the same day of auction, they deposited 1/4th of the bid price and thereafter deposited remaining 3/4th price, on which lease deed was also executed in their favour for only 385.66 sq. yards, they cannot take advantage by insisting for allotment of the additional land. Even if the Compromise Committee of UIT, Bharatpur and the UIT, Bharatpur in their meeting at earlier point of time decided to allot the additional land to the plaintiffs-appellants on the same price by charging interest for the intervening period, decision of the Government directing auction of additional land as Plot No. 195-A must be held to be more in conformity with the provisions of law because the additional land as and when is put to auction, the plaintiffs-appellants will also be in a position to participate in auction proceedings of that additional land, if they are at all willing to purchase the said additional land. The mere fact that in the auction notice Plot No. 195 was described as corner plot would not entitle the plaintiffs-appellants to straight away claim allotment of the said additional land. If it is directed to be so, then it would amount to allotting double of the size of the land than the one, which was originally put to auction, for which the appellants have given their bid, deposited 1/4th of the same on the same day and thereafter, got the lease deed executed in their favour after depositing remaining 3/4th of their bid price. 8. In the view above discussion, the impugned judgments and decrees do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 8. In the view above discussion, the impugned judgments and decrees do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. This appeal does not raise any question of law much less substantial question of law and the same is, therefore, dismissed. 9. Stay application also stands dismissed.