JUDGMENT Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. - Heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties on admission of second appeal and perused records. 2. Original Suit No. 10/2002, Bhawanideen & others v. Ramsweamwar & others, was filed for relief of removal of encroachment over plot No. 227 of plaintiffs and plot No. 226 of public way (Chakroad). This suit was contested by defendants with averment that defendants had not made any encroachment on public land (Chakroad) and it is the plaintiff who had raised such encroachments. Therefore his suit should be dismissed. 3. After affording opportunity of hearing, Civil Judge, Senior Division (/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate), Chitrakoot had decreed the original suit by its judgment dated 19.8.2011 and directed the defendants to remove their constructions raised over plots No. 226 and 227. The judgment of trial court was passed after getting the disputed property surveyed and confirming the survey-report. 4. Against judgment of trial court, Civil Appeal No. 47/2011, Ramsweamwar and others v. Bhawanideen and others, was preferred which was heard and dismissed by the judgment dated 7.8.2015 of Additional District Judge, Court No.-4, Chitrakoot. In this judgment, first appellate court had again considered the facts and evidences of the parties including the survey-report, and then framed points of determination. After affording opportunity of hearing the first appellate court had held that disputed constructions are raised on public way land of plot No. 226, which should be removed; and judgment of trial court is in accordance with law which requires no interference. 5. Aggrieved by the judgments of the two lower courts, present second appeal has been preferred by the defendants of the original suit. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that plaintiffs' land is plot No. 227 and defendants' land is plot No. 217. In between these two lands, there exist plot No. 226, which is land of public way. He contended that it is the plaintiffs who had encroached upon public land, therefore the decree for demolition should be passed against plaintiffs and not against defendants-appellants. He further contended that his objections against survey-report were not confirmed by the lower courts, which have given erroneous findings on the basis of erroneous survey-report. He contended that it is the plaintiffs who had encroached upon public land, therefore the decree for demolition should be passed against plaintiffs and not against defendants-appellants. He further contended that his objections against survey-report were not confirmed by the lower courts, which have given erroneous findings on the basis of erroneous survey-report. He also contended that defendants had examined Lekhpal of the area as DW-3, who had stated that he had not surveyed the disputed land, so any survey relied by lower courts is erroneous and the judgment of lower courts based on such survey-report is liable to be set aside. Therefore, appeal should be admitted for being allowed. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the trial court had got the disputed land surveyed within the knowledge and presence of the parties. When survey-report was filed, then no objection was filed against it by defendant-appellants; and this fact is also mentioned in judgment of lower courts. He argued that there was no error in survey-report, which was rightly confirmed by the trial court and relied by both the lower courts. He also contended that admittedly relief was sought by plaintiffs for plot No. 226 of public way and plot No. 227 of the ownership of plaintiffs-respondents, and admittedly defendants-appellants have no right, title or claim over these plots No. 226 or 227. Therefore any decree passed for these plots cannot be treated as erroneous and will not affect legal right of appellants. So appeal should be dismissed in limine. 8. There was oral contention of learned counsel for the appellants that his objection against survey-report was not considered by trial court. But in judgment of lower court, it is specifically mentioned that defendants-appellants had not filed any written objection against survey-report. When trial court had relied upon the confirmed survey-report and passed its judgment, then for preferring Civil Appeal No. 10/2002, the memorandum of appeal was filed. In this memorandum of appeal the appellants had no where mentioned that they had ever filed objection against survey-report in trial court that was not considered. This contention of learned counsel for the respondent is acceptable that had appellant-defendants filed any such objection, and that was not considered by trial court, then this fact must have been mentioned in memorandum of first appeal. It appears that this plea was raised for the first time in present second appeal. 9. This contention of learned counsel for the respondent is acceptable that had appellant-defendants filed any such objection, and that was not considered by trial court, then this fact must have been mentioned in memorandum of first appeal. It appears that this plea was raised for the first time in present second appeal. 9. The provisions of Order 41, Rule 2 C.P.C. reads as under : - "2. Grounds which may be taken in appeal.- The appellant shall not, except by leave of the Court, urge or be heard in support of any ground of objection not set forth in the memorandum of appeal, but the Appellate Court, in deciding the appeal, shall not be confined to the grounds of objections set forth in the memorandum of appeal or taken by leave of the Court under this rule: Provided that the Court shall not rest its decision on any other ground unless the party who may be affected thereby has had a sufficient opportunity of contesting the case on that ground." 10. Since this Rule-2 of Order-41 CPC makes it clear that those grounds cannot be taken during appeal by appellants as a matter of right, except with permission of the Court, which were not mentioned in memo of appeal. This was not the argument of learned counsel for the appellants that any such ground was raised by appellants' side during first appeal. Since he had not raised any ground regarding non-consideration of his alleged objection against survey-report, therefore such ground cannot be raised directly in second appeal. Apart from it, the record reveals that no objection was in fact filed by defendants against survey-report filed in trial court. 11. The alternative argument of appellant side was that defendants had raised objection against survey-report in additional written-statement filed by them in trial court. Additional written-statement or written-statement is pleading of the parties, which has to be proved. In this regard no evidence, except the examination of DW-3 Lekhpal, was adduced by defendant in that regard. This DW-3 Lekhpal was posted in area of disputed property and stated on oath that he had never surveyed the disputed property. His statement on this point may be correct that he had never surveyed the disputed area. But such statement does not have any effect on the findings of the judgment of the case. This DW-3 Lekhpal was posted in area of disputed property and stated on oath that he had never surveyed the disputed property. His statement on this point may be correct that he had never surveyed the disputed area. But such statement does not have any effect on the findings of the judgment of the case. The survey-report relied by the lower courts was not prepared by Lekhpal but was prepared by Amin of the civil court, which was sent on spot after informing the parties by the trial court. Such survey was apparently conducted in accordance with law and rules on the basis of revenue records and maps. The points raised by defendant during trial were discussed properly and then trial court had passed judgment. First appellate court had also meticulously considered each and every objection regarding survey-report and satisfactorily answered every point in that regard. The judgment of Presiding Officer of first appellate court is very meticulous on facts and law and it appears to be perfect in its finding on each point of determination, which were decided against appellants. 12. It is admitted in pleadings of the parties that plot No.-227 belongs to respondents-plaintiffs, plot No.-226 is public way and plot No.-217 is land of defendant-appellant. The dispute in this case was as to whether the disputed constructions of defendants-appellants were situated on plot No. 217 and on public land of plot No. 226, or on plaintiffs' land of plot No.-227. After survey, it was established that disputed constructions are present on public way (Chakroad) of plot No. 226. These are unauthorized constructions, because plot No.-226 does not belong to ownership, title or claim of defendants-appellants. The dispute between parties was on this question of fact that can be decided on the basis of evidences and survey, as has been done by the lower courts. There is no question of law involved in it. The judgment of both the courts are based on proper appreciation of evidences and survey-report as well as other evidences, which are acceptable and needs no interference by re-appreciation by this Court. 13. There is no question of law involved in it. The judgment of both the courts are based on proper appreciation of evidences and survey-report as well as other evidences, which are acceptable and needs no interference by re-appreciation by this Court. 13. On examination of the reasonings recorded by the trial court, which are affirmed by the learned first appellate court in first appeal, I am of the view that the judgments of the trial court as well as the first appellate court are well reasoned, and are based upon proper appreciation of the entire evidence on record. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law, is involved in this case before this Court. No perversity or infirmity is found in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court that has been affirmed by the first appellate court to warrant interference in this appeal. None of the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants-defendants can be sustained. 14. In view of the above, this Court finds that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The second appeal is dismissed. 15. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to lower court. Appeal dismissed.