JUDGMENT Vinod Kumar Misra, J. – Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Original Suit No. 151 of 2009 was filed by plaintiff-Gajraj Singh against Ajay and others-defendants for perpetual injunction before the Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Hawali, Meerut. 3. Learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Hawali, Meerut vide judgement dated 27.11.2009, dismissed the suit and imposed special cost of Rs. 3,000/- against the plaintiff for defendant No. 1. Plaintiff assailed the trial court judgement before the learned District Judge, Meerut by preferring Appeal No. 155 of 2009. Appeal was transferred to the learned Additional District Judge, SC/ST Act, Meerut. Learned Additional District Judge vide judgement dated 4.4.2016 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the finding of the trial court. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted following case laws: (2014) 2 SCC 302 , Sandeep Thapar v. SME Technologies Private Limited; (2012) 12 SCC 461 , Suresh Kumar Kantial Patel v. Bal Krishna Laxmidas Kothari; 2007 (2) ARC 276 SC, Aditya Hotels (P) Ltd. (M/s) v. Bombay Swadeshi Stores Ltd. and others; ALJ 1951 page 196, Full Bench, Chhedi Lal and anothers v. Chhotey Lal; 2014 (102) ALR 274 SC, A.M. Sangappa @ Sangappa and others; (2014) 11 SCC 351 , Brijesh Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others. 4. I have gone through the cited case laws. 5. In the first case law appeal was allowed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and appellant was permitted to file the written statement within a period of two weeks on payment of Rs. 50,000/- as cost. In the above ruling reference has also been made of the case law of Kailash v. Nanhku, (2005) 4 SCC 480 , wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as follows: "4. The High Court was of the opinion that even if Mr. Sharad Maheshwari is impleaded and had filed an affidavit, the averments in the plaint could not have been changed. In others words, the character of the plaint, the pleadings contained therein and the relief claimed would remain the same. 5. The application of the appellant for seeking extension in time for filing the written statement has been rejected with the observation that Order 8, Rule 1 CPC is mandatory and the court cannot permit filing of a written statement beyond the 30 days from the date of service of summons. 5. The application of the appellant for seeking extension in time for filing the written statement has been rejected with the observation that Order 8, Rule 1 CPC is mandatory and the court cannot permit filing of a written statement beyond the 30 days from the date of service of summons. At best, the court has power to permit a period of further 60 days from the date of service of summons upon the defendant to file the written statement. But this has to be done for reasons to be recorded in writing. Since the appellant herein has filed the application beyond the period of 30 days+60 days, it was not permissible for the court to allow the appellant to file the written statement." 6. In the second case law cited ruling, delay in filing the written statement was condoned subject to the payment of cost of Rs. One Lakh by the appellant within four weeks. 7. In the third case law, matter was remanded to the trial court to consider afresh as neither the trial court nor the High Court indicated any reason to justify the acceptance of the written statement after expiry of the time fixed. 8. In the fourth case law, it was held that the question of the right of co-sharers in respect of joint land should be kept separate and distinct from the question as to what relief should be granted to a co-sharer, whose right in respect of joint land has been invaded by the other co-sharers-either by exclusively appropriating and cultivating land or by raising constructions thereon. While therefore a co-sharer is entitled to object to another co-sharer exclusively appropriating land to himself to the detriment of other co-sharers, the question as to what relief should be granted to the plaintiff in the event of the invasion of his rights will depend upon the circumstances of each case. The right to the relief for 'demolition and injunction will be granted or withheld by the Court according as the circumstances. 9. In the fifth case law it has been observed that Order 41, Rule 31 mandates that the Appellate Court has to frame points for determination, decision thereon, reasons for the decision and where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled. 9. In the fifth case law it has been observed that Order 41, Rule 31 mandates that the Appellate Court has to frame points for determination, decision thereon, reasons for the decision and where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled. Judgement of the appellate court must reflect its conscious application of mind and record find supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with contention put forth by both the sides. 10. In the sixth case law, it has been held that word jurisdiction under Section 9-A of the Maharashtra Amendment Act, 1977 is enough to include the issue of limitation. 11. In the seventh case law, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding condonation of delay, sufficient cause for delay must be satisfactorily and convincingly explained. 12. I have perused the judgement of both the courts below. 13. Learned trial court as well as learned first appellate court have given the concurrent finding that the plaintiff is the owner and possession of Khasra No. 690, area 0.68 Hectare but it has not been proved that this land is situated at link road. Appellate court has also adverted towards the taking of written statement after 90 days and has found that merely on technical ground no party can be restrained to put forth his case. The judgement of both the courts on the issues involved are well reasoned and does not require any interference. Consequently, no substantial question of law is involved in the matter and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 14. The Second Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.