JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present appeal is maintained by the appellant/plaintiff/H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority, against the judgment and decree passed by learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, in Civil Appeal No.72 of 2000, whereby the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hamirpur, in Civil Suit No.283 of 1993, was set aside. 2. Briefly facts giving rise to the present appeal are that appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit before the learned trial Court seeking Permanent Prohibitory and Mandatory Injunction against the respondent/defendant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendant’). As per the plaintiff, the suit was instituted seeking Permanent Prohibitory Injunction with respect to EWS House No.314 in Housing Board Colony, Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter refereed to as ‘suit property’). Simultaneously, a prayer for mandatory injunction was also made for demolition of unauthorized construction raised in violation of approved site plan over House No.EWS-314. As per the plaintiff, the defendant applied for the suit property at Housing Board Colony, Hamipur, (H.P). The same was allotted to him and he was put in possession of the suit property. The suit property was allotted to the defendant, subject to certain terms and conditions mentioned in letter dated 28.10.1977. Higher Purchase Tenancy Agreement was also entered into. As per the agreement, the construction was to be raised as per the approved plan. In the first week of September 1993, the plaintiff-Board conducted inspection of the suit property and it was found that defendant raised unauthorized construction by encroaching upon the land of the plaintiff-Board, which is depicted in site plan, which was filed alongwith the plaint before the learned trial Court. The defendant was requested not to raise unauthorized construction, but defendant turned deaf ear to the request of the plaintiff. 3. Conversely, the defendant, by filing written statement, resisted the contents of the plaint and raised preliminary objections, viz.; cause of action, estoppel, maintainability etc. As per the defendant, he time and again requested the plaintiff-Board for approval of site plan and he had also issued numerous notices dated 17.2.1987, 6.9.1987, 28.10.1988, 26.11.1988 and 3.3.1989 for expediting his application for approval of his plan. The then, Chairman of the plaintiff- Board also directed to supply the approved plan to the defendant, but to no avail. As per the defendant, he time and again requested the plaintiff-Board for approval of site plan and he had also issued numerous notices dated 17.2.1987, 6.9.1987, 28.10.1988, 26.11.1988 and 3.3.1989 for expediting his application for approval of his plan. The then, Chairman of the plaintiff- Board also directed to supply the approved plan to the defendant, but to no avail. It is further contended that as a precautionary measure, the defendant in order to protect the wall used safety measure and completed the construction in the year 1989. The officials/officers of the plaintiff-Board were having the knowledge of the construction being raised by the defendant, as the office of Junior Engineer of plaintiff- Board is situated in Housing Board Colony itself. Lastly, it is contended that no unauthorized construction has been raised by the defendant by encroaching upon the land of the plaintiff-Board and instead of this, plaintiff submitted wrong site plan. 4. In rebuttal, the plaintiff-Board had also filed replication, wherein the stand of the defendant was controverted and assertions made in the plaint were reasserted and reiterated. 5. The learned trial Court framed following issues on 8.12.1994 :- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of Prohibitory as well as Mandatory Injunction as prayed for ? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing this suit ? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action ? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff has acquiesced the acts of the defendant, as alleged ? OPD. 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged in preliminary objections No.5 to 13 of written statement ? OPD. 6. Relief.” 6. After appreciation of the evidence, both ocular and documentary, the learned trial Court has decided Issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff-Board and Issues No.2 to 5 were decided against the defendant and the suit for mandatory injunction was decreed. The said decision of the learned trial Court was challenged by the defendant in appeal and the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, H.P, in Civil Appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned trial Court and suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. 7. The present appeal was admitted on 2.11.2006 on the following substantial questions of law:- “1. The said decision of the learned trial Court was challenged by the defendant in appeal and the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, H.P, in Civil Appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned trial Court and suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. 7. The present appeal was admitted on 2.11.2006 on the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the first appellate Court has committed an illegality in dismissing the suit of the appellant by setting aside the decree of the trial Court with the finding that the appellant having not responded to the requests of the respondent defendant for making additions, is estopped to file the suit and is not entitled to relief of mandatory injunction as also the prohibitory injunction claimed ? 2. Whether the first appellate Court has also erred in concluding that no permission for addition was required when the original hire purchase agreement stood merged in the sale deed executed subsequently?” 8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant has argued that the learned Court below has failed to interpret the documents correctly and not appreciated the evidence to its true prospective and the law is not correctly applied. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant has vehemently argued that the findings arrived at by the learned Appellate Court is just reasoned and after appreciating the evidence to its true prospective. He has argued that the plaintiff has failed to prove their own documents on record and the original documents were withheld by the plaintiff. He has also argued that the appeal deserves dismissal with costs. 10. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record in detail. 11. In order to prove its case, plaintiff-Board examined three witnesses and placed on record certain documents Ex.PW1/A, copy of authority letter, Ex.PW1/B, copy of agreement, Ex.PW1/C, copy of notice, Ex.PW2/A, copy of plan and Ex.PW3/A, copy of site plan. On the other hand, defendant examined five witnesses and placed on record documents Ex.D-1, copy of deed, Ex.DW1/A to Ex.DW1/H, copies of letters and receipts and Ex.DW5/A, copy of Local Commissioner report. 12. PW-1 R.C. Katoch, SDO, Housing Board Hamipur, has deposed that agreement Ex.PW1/A, was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff-Board after allotment of House No.314 in his favour. He has deposed that the defendant has raised unauthorized construction without getting its approval. 12. PW-1 R.C. Katoch, SDO, Housing Board Hamipur, has deposed that agreement Ex.PW1/A, was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff-Board after allotment of House No.314 in his favour. He has deposed that the defendant has raised unauthorized construction without getting its approval. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that sale deed Ex.D-1, qua House No.314 was executed in favour of the defendant. He has admitted in his cross-examination that for additional alteration the defendant had applied and its receipt for the same is Ex.D-2 issued by the concerned department. He has admitted that the defendant had purchased constructed house in H.P. Housing Board Colony, Hamirpur, but he has not shown as to what type of additional construction has been raised by the defendant. 13. PW-2 Rup Lal, Junior Engineer of the plaintiff-Board, has prepared the site plan Ex.PW2/A. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the defendant was neither present nor notice was issued to him to be present at the spot, when the plan was prepared. He has admitted that he has not mentioned as to what type of construction which is alleged to be unauthorized has been raised by the defendant. 14. PW-3 Rattan Chand, has prepared site plan Ex.PW3/A. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the site plan has been prepared by him without using any scale and the defendant was not present at the spot when the site plan Ex.PW3/A was prepared. He has also admitted that he had not issued any notice to the defendant about his visiting the spot and was not associated by the revenue officials at the time of preparing the site plan. So, his statement as a whole also does not show as to what was the construction at the time, when the house was allotted to the defendant and what is the type of construction, he has raised subsequently which is alleged to be unauthorized. 15. DW-1 Dharam Singh, has deposed that he wrote letters Ex.DW1/A to Ex.DW1/E to the plaintiff-Board, but no response was received from the plaintiff-Board. Even the plaintiff has sought indulgence of the higher official of the plaintiff-Board i.e. the Chairman to whom he had written that permission to him to raise construction was not being given and the Chairman, H.P. Housing Board wrote letter Ex.DW1/H, directed the Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer of the plaintiff- Board to redress the genuine grievances of the defendant. Even the plaintiff has sought indulgence of the higher official of the plaintiff-Board i.e. the Chairman to whom he had written that permission to him to raise construction was not being given and the Chairman, H.P. Housing Board wrote letter Ex.DW1/H, directed the Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer of the plaintiff- Board to redress the genuine grievances of the defendant. This act and conduct of the plaintiff-Board shows that impliedly permission to the defendant was granted. 16. DW-5 Rakesh Kant Gupta, was appointed as Local Commissioner and submitted his report Ex.DW5/A. Perusal of the report shows that whatever construction has been raised by the defendant, which is alleged to be unauthorized by the plaintiff-Board is well within the plot area of the defendant and the only encroachment which can be stated in real sense, the same is of eaves in the house and the same are necessary for the protection of the house. Relevant para-5 of the report makes it very clear, which reads as under :- “From the above I find that the projection of roof out of the plot area to the extent 1½’ wide are according to the standard plan and also as provided in the existing purchased houses constructed by the plaintiff-Board cannot be alleged as encroachment. Thus, encroachment actually made by the defendant works out 14 x 2’ (3’-6” (-) 1’-6”) =28 square feet against 70 square feet as alleged by the plaintiff. This encroachment of 28 square feet area made by the defendant, projecting roof projection more than 1’-6” can add more protection to the house”. 17. This specific para of the report shows that this projection has been made by the defendant in the roof of his house, which is necessary for the protection of his house. It means that it is a minor overhanging encroachment and it shall not cause any hindrance to any person being at sufficient height from the ground in the air. So, in real sense it is neither encroachment nor causing any inconvenience to anyone including the plaintiff. Moreover, there is no provision in the Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement Ex.PW1/B for demolition of the unauthorized construction. After executing the sale deed Ex.D-1 in favour of the defendant, the plaintiff-Board is left with no right and interest in the house plot allotted to the defendant. Moreover, there is no provision in the Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement Ex.PW1/B for demolition of the unauthorized construction. After executing the sale deed Ex.D-1 in favour of the defendant, the plaintiff-Board is left with no right and interest in the house plot allotted to the defendant. So, the plaintiff is neither entitled to the relief of Permanent Prohibitory Injunction nor the relief of Mandatory Injunction. 18. The evidence of the plaintiff is not convincing, reliable, and trustworthy and its oral evidence is not supported by any documentary evidence. On the other hand, evidence of the defendant is convincing, reliable and trustworthy and the defendant has been able to rebut the oral as well as documentary evidence produced on record by the plaintiff. 19. The net result of the above discussion is that the learned Appellate Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the defendant has made construction within the prescribed limits. So, the judgment of learned Appellate Court does not suffer from any infirmity and cannot be said to be perverse. Therefore, Point No.1 is answered accordingly. Similarly, after the execution of Hire Purchase Agreement, the defendant has raised construction within the prescribed limits of the house and he has purchased the house in question and also sent various letters in writing for the permission and the same were also referred to the higher authorities of the plaintiff-Board. So, Point No.2 is answered accordingly by holding that the findings of learned Appellate Court on this aspect that no permission was required to be taken by the defendant, as per law. 20. In view of the above discussion the findings arrived at by the learned Appellate Court below are just reasoned and after appreciating the evidence of the parties, oral as well as documentary placed on record and the law is applied correctly. In these circumstances, the appeal of the appellant is without merit and deserves dismissal. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Pending applications, if any shall also stands disposed of.