JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. K.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC from the judgment dated 16.04.2012 delivered in Money Appeal No. 05 of 2011. At the time of admitting this appeal, the following substantial question of law for purpose of hearing by the order dated 03.06.2013: “Whether the appellate court has misread evidence for returning the finding that “unfortunately it has not been proved by the exhibited cash memos that whether the plaintiff kept/stored the purchased articles/goods inside his shop premises or not and that whether there was any such articles at all inside the shop premises of the plaintiff at the relevant time. There is nothing in the record to show that on or before the 29th December, 2004, Agartala Municipal Council had issued any notice to the businessmen of the Agartala Motor stand road and it's adjacent areas to remove there respective shop, if they encroched the land of the Agartala Municipal Council or any other government land to run their business. In absence of such evidence on record I find no scope to opine that the defendants of this suit demolished the shop premises of the plaintiff described in the schedule of the plaint under the name and style 'Das Variety stores' on 29th December, 2004 A.D. and that defendants had taken away the goods of the plaintiff from his shop premises valued at Rs.1,63,179/- causing total damages of Rs.2,95,886/-?” 3. The suit being Money Suit No.12 of 2006 was instituted by the appellant. The suit is structured for damages. According to the appellant, he had a shop in the Motor Stand Road Agartala. He had been running that shop for selling the grocery, since 1983. He had the registration under Tripura Shop and Establishment Act, 1970. On 29.12.2004, at deep hours of the night, the defendants demolished the entire shop. Having such information, the plaintiff rushed to the spot at 8.00 a.m. on 30.12.2004 and found that no merchandise or the structure were available there. According to the plaintiff, the value of the structure was of Rs.1,32,707/- and the value of the goods taken away by the defendants was Rs.1,63,179/-. 4. Having such information, the plaintiff rushed to the spot at 8.00 a.m. on 30.12.2004 and found that no merchandise or the structure were available there. According to the plaintiff, the value of the structure was of Rs.1,32,707/- and the value of the goods taken away by the defendants was Rs.1,63,179/-. 4. The defendants by filing the written statement denied such allegations and stated further that the plaintiff was carrying on his so called business from an unauthorized and illegal structure and when the defendants found that for purpose of expansion of the road it emerged highly to remove that illegal structure on the land of the defendants. The defendants have categorically denied the damages as projected by the appellant. The defendants have further stated that they were under no obligation to make good for the damages as alleged or at all. On examination of the pleadings, the following issues were framed: “(i) Is the suit maintainable in law? (ii) Did the defendants demolish the shop premises of the Plaintiff described in the schedule of the Plaint under the name and style of 'Das Variety Stores' on 29.12.2004 and whether the Defendants had taken away the goods of the Plaintiff from the shop premises valued at Rs.1,63,179/- causing the damage of Rs.2,95,886/-? (iii) Whether the defendants are liable to pay the damages to the Plaintiff for the said amount of Rs.2,95,886/- along with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 29.12.2004? (iv) Is the Plaintiff entitled to the decree as prayed for? (v) What other relief or reliefs parties are entitled to? 5. Having recorded the evidence, the trial court has returned the following finding: “Unfortunately it has not been proved by the exhibited cash memos that whether the plaintiff kept/stored the purchased articles/goods inside his shop premises or not and that whether there was any such articles at all inside the shop premises of the plaintiff at the relevant time. There is nothing in the record to show that on or before the 29th December, 2004, Agartala Municipal Council had issued any notice to the businessmen of the Agartala Motor stand road and it's adjacent areas to remove thre respective shop, if they encroached the land of the Agartala Municipal Council or any other government land to run their business. There is nothing in the record to show that on or before the 29th December, 2004, Agartala Municipal Council had issued any notice to the businessmen of the Agartala Motor stand road and it's adjacent areas to remove thre respective shop, if they encroached the land of the Agartala Municipal Council or any other government land to run their business. In absence of such evidence on record I find no scope to opine that the defendants of this suit demolished the shop premises of the plaintiff described in the schedule of the plaint under the name and style 'Das variety stores' on 29th December, 2004 A.D. and that defendants had taken away the goods of the plaintiff from his shop premises valued at Rs.1,63,179/- causing total damages of Rs.2,95,886/- and, accordingly, the issue No.II is decided in negative and in favour of the defendants.” 6. Based on that finding, the suit of the plaintiff-appellant has been dismissed. Further observing that the plaintiff has admitted that he had no right to run a business on the land of Agartala Municipal Council and if the authority of Agartala Municipal Council had removed any unauthorized construction like the shop premises, as erected the plaintiff, in exercise of power as provided by section 107 of Tripura Municipal Act, 1994, the defendants of the suit cannot be made liable for damages. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.03.2011, the plaintiff-appellant filed the appeal under Section 96 of the CPC in the court of the District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala being Money Appeal No 05 of 2011. For hearing, the appeal was transferred to the court of the Addl. District Judge, Court No.3, West Tripura, Agartala and by the impugned judgment dated 16.04.2012, the first appellate court affirmed the finding of the trial court recording no alternative view. As such, it is an absolute affirmation. Now by this appeal, the said finding of affirmation has been called in question. 8. Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has suffered damages to the extent as indicated in the plaint and in support of that he has furnished the cash memos, bill registers and the journal in the evidence. But the trial court as well as the first appellate court did not rely on those evidence while returning the judgment as questioned in this appeal. When queried, Mr. But the trial court as well as the first appellate court did not rely on those evidence while returning the judgment as questioned in this appeal. When queried, Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has fairly admitted that in the plaint, there is no pleading in respect of the goods which got damaged. There is no description even of the goods by way of pleading. Those cash memos, the journals and bill registers however have been submitted in the evidence. It is apparent on the face of the record that those cash memos, journals and bill registers were not made relatable to particular goods or the goods that suffered damage at the time of the eviction drive as taken up by the defendants. There cannot be any evidence without pleading. It is like putting the evidence in avoid to show that in the void there was content. This is not the way how the claim should be raised. There should be the specific pleadings in the plaint describing how the plaintiff suffered the damage and how much quantity of the goods or other property suffered damage as collateral to such eviction drive. 9. Having due regard to these aspects, this court is unable to accept the contention of Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel. However, Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel has further raised a question that there was no emergency for resorting to Section 107 of the Tripura Municipal Act, 1994 as the position as taken by the defendants is that the eviction was for widening the road to find a solution to congestion. Without giving any notice, the Agartala Municipal Corporation had carried out that eviction and thus the plaintiff has suffered damages as quantified. 10. From the other side, Mr. K.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that someone who was running a shop unauthorizedly and illegally occupying the municipal land is not entitled to any notice. Section 107 of Tripura Municipal Act, 1994 provides that: “A Municipality- (a) may, without notice remove, alter or otherwise deal with any un-authorised construction in, over, above or upon any public street, sewer, drain, water-course or ghat; (b) may, remove without notice any materials or goods or any movable property which has, without its permission, been deposited in a public street, a drain, aquaduct or water-course.” Further, Mr. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has made to reference provisions of Section 188(3)(a) of the Tripura Municipal Act, 1994 which according to him is relevant and provides that: “No person shall without or otherwise than in conformity with the terms of licence granted by the Municipality in this behalf,- (a) hawk of expose for sale any article whatsoever, whether it is for human consumption or not” 11. Mr. Pal, learned counsel has further submitted that the plaintiff-appellant did not have any trade license or permission to run such business from that area and hence he has been evicted by the Municipal Corporation in exercise of its power under Section 107 of the Tripura Municipal Act, 1994. Mr. Pal has relied on a decision of this court in Harinarayan Das & Anr. vs. The State of Tripura & 4 Ors. delivered in W.P.(C) No.436 of 2016, where this court has observed while considering the vires of Section 107 of Tripura Municipality Act that the said power cannot be stated to be unconstitutional. 12. This court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order and as such is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction conferred by Section 100 of the CPC. Hence, this appeal stands dismissed. Draw the decree accordingly. Send down the LCRs thereafter.