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 District Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil Appeal No. 96 of 2005, upholding the findings arrived at by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bilaspur, dated 9.9.2005, in Civil Suit No. 126/1 of 2003, with a prayer to decree the suit of the plaintiff alongwith costs. 2. Briefly facts giving rise to the present appeal are that appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter called the plaintiff) is a statutory authority and is carrying on the functions of H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority. The respondent/defendant (hereinafter called the defendant) has allotted a plot to him at Bilaspur. The present suit was maintained by the plaintiff that defendant raised unauthorized construction measuring 24 square metres on the side setoff and front offset in ground floor and 4-68 square metres at first floor in Plot No. 17 in Social Housing Board Colony, Phase-II, as shown in the attached site plan. As per the plaintiff, plaintiff Board have the power to acquire the movable and immovable property in its name and to built Social Housing Board Colony in different places of the State including Bilaspur and have also developed plots and constructed houses and allotted the same to the plaintiffs on their requests. The allottees have also signed and executed Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement with the Estate Officer. It is averred that HIG Plot No.17 in Housing Board Colony, Phase-II, Bilaspur, was allotted to the defendant and possession thereof was handed over on 22.6.2000 by the Junior Engineer. It is further averred that defendant is bound to abide by the terms and conditions of the agreement and, if any, addition is to be made, then the same has to be carried out in accordance with the standard drawing supplied by the plaintiff Board and if the same is carried out without approval or deviation of the approved map, then such addition to be removed at the risks and costs of the allottee. As per the plaintiff, defendant has raised unauthorized construction by covering side setoff and front offset in Plot No.17 in contravention to the conditions contained in the agreement. Defendant did not pay any heed to the request of the plaintiff in spite of notices issued by the Assistant Engineer by the plaintiff on 24.1.2003 and 31.1.2003, respectively. 3. As per the plaintiff, defendant has raised unauthorized construction by covering side setoff and front offset in Plot No.17 in contravention to the conditions contained in the agreement. Defendant did not pay any heed to the request of the plaintiff in spite of notices issued by the Assistant Engineer by the plaintiff on 24.1.2003 and 31.1.2003, respectively. 3. Written statement was filed by the defendant and it is averred that Plot No.17 was allotted to defendant, but it is denied that any authorized construction has been allotted to the defendant on payment of consideration which was duly paid by the defendant and received by the plaintiff. As per the defendant, he got the map approved and after construction of the building obtained the electricity and water connection to which the plaintiff never objected and now at this stage, the plaintiff has no right to object with respect to the construction. The construction was raised within the limit of Plot No.17 allotted by the plaintiff to the defendant. As per the defendant, the present suit is filed just to harass the defendant, who is law abiding person. 4. The learned trial Court after framing two issues. Issue No.1 is decided against the plaintiff and consequently, suit was dismissed. 5. Feeling aggrieved thereby the plaintiff maintained first appeal before the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, that the findings of learned Court below are against the law and without appreciating the evidence and pleading of the parties to its true perspective. The learned Court below has not interpreted the documents correctly. The oral as well as documentary evidence is not appreciated to its true perspective. The learned appellate Court below affirmed the findings of the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Now, the appellant has maintained the present Regular Second Appeal, which was admitted on the following question of law : “Whether the findings of the learned trial Court are justifiable and sustainable in the eyes of law and on the face of the material brought on record by the parties ?” 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Courts below has failed to interpret the documents correctly and not appreciated the evidence to its true prospective and the law is not correctly applied. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Courts below has failed to interpret the documents correctly and not appreciated the evidence to its true prospective and the law is not correctly applied. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that the findings arrived at by the learned Court below are 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. 8. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record in detail. 9. The case of the plaintiff is that defendant after allotment of the plot raised unauthorized construction without prior approval of the plaintiff. Plaintiff placed on record Ex.PW2/A, copy of Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement dated 27.5.2000, executed between the plaintiff Board and defendant. Ex.PW2/B, is copy of allotment letter of Plot No.17 dated 28.4.2000 containing the terms and conditions. Ex.PW2/C is copy of office order dated 22.6.2000 vide which the possession of plot No.17 was handed over to the defendant. Ex.PW2/D is copy of notice dated 24.1.2003 issued by the Assistant Engineer of the plaintiff Board to the defendant. Ex.PW2/E is another copy of notice dated 31.1.2003 requesting the defendant to stop the unauthorized construction and for removal of the unauthorized construction. Ex.PW1/A is the site plan showing unauthorized construction by the defendant. Ex.PW2/F is the copy of letter dated 5.10.2004. 10. Shri D.R. Bhardwaj, S.D.O has been examined as PW-2. According to him, Plot No.17 was allotted to the defendant in Housing Board Colony, Phase-II, Bilaspur, vide allotment letter dated 28.4.2000 and Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement was executed on 27.5.2000 and the possession of the same was given to the defendant on 22.6.2000. According to him, defendant has not raised the construction as per the approved plan and no side offset and front offset have been left and the unauthorized construction has been shown with red pencil. He has stated about issuance of notice to the defendant for stopping and removing the unauthorized construction, but defendant did not remove the same. He tendered in evidence Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F which are stated to be true copies of the original. He has stated about issuance of notice to the defendant for stopping and removing the unauthorized construction, but defendant did not remove the same. He tendered in evidence Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F which are stated to be true copies of the original. In cross examination, he has admitted that the defendant has raised the construction in his own plot and no complaint was received from the owner of the adjoining plot regarding the unauthorized construction and the defendant has paid full and final payment of the plot. He has admitted that Revenue Department has not issued any Tatima regarding the encroachment, self stated that according to the Architect, demarcation is carried out at the spot. It is also in his cross examination that there is no separate demarcation report alongwith the site plan. He has also stated that the site plan is not certified by the S.D.O. 11. As far as the unauthorized construction is concerned, it is on record that the defendant never made any unauthorized construction in violation of the terms contained in the agreement. The evidence of PW-2 D.R. Bhardwaj, is not relevant since it has not come in his evidence that he personally visited the spot and found any encroachment. Even, he has not prepared the site plan and the same is not verified by him. Though, he has stated that he has been authorized by the plaintiff Board to give the evidence and in support of its contention, the plaintiff Board has placed on record Ex.PW2/F letter dated 5.10.2004 from the office of Chief Executive Officer-cum-Secretary, H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority to the Chief Engineer and other officers, whereby the Superintending Engineer has been authorized to sign the plaint and Vakalatnama drafted and has further been authorized to give authority letter to any officer to give evidence on behalf of the plaintiff Board. It is pertinent to note here that except this document, no authority letter on behalf of the plaintiff Board or the Superintending Engineer has been filed or placed on record to show that PW-2 was authorized to make statement in the Court on behalf of the plaintiff Board. As such, he cannot be said to be Special Power of Attorney or authorized person of the plaintiff Board to give statement on its behalf. As such, he cannot be said to be Special Power of Attorney or authorized person of the plaintiff Board to give statement on its behalf. It has been admitted by PW-2 that site plan was prepared by him in the office after taking demarcation at the spot. He has not satisfactorily explained when he visited the spot and what was the source of information regarding the unauthorized construction. It is also not clear on record as whether the spot was inspected by Jr. Engineer in presence of the defendant. He has not mentioned how much unauthorized construction was calculated and whether he was possessing the original drawing when unauthorized construction was calculated and what are the basis for such conclusion, are not explained. 12. As per the terms and condition No.30 of Ex.PW2/B, defendant was required to construct the house within three years from the date of allotment of the plot after getting the plan approved from the Estate Manager and it is also the case of the plaintiff that defendant has not raised the construction as per the approved plan. Therefore, in order to verify the exact unauthorized construction, the plaintiff was required to prove and place the original approved map. Neither the original map was relied upon on behalf of the plaintiff Board in its statements nor the same is proved by examining the person who has prepared the same. However, learned counsel for the plaintiff has tendered in evidence Ex.PA/1 on 29.7.2005 and perusal of this document would go to show that it is a copy of the same which is not per-se admissible in evidence and it was required to be proved by the authorized person. Therefore, an adverse inference has to be drawn for not producing the original approved map on record. Had it been produced, the same would not have supported the case of the plaintiff that is why it was withheld. The plaintiff has also not led any evidence that out of the allotted land the defendant was required to leave a particular space for setback and was required to raise construction on a particular area. Had it been produced, the same would not have supported the case of the plaintiff that is why it was withheld. The plaintiff has also not led any evidence that out of the allotted land the defendant was required to leave a particular space for setback and was required to raise construction on a particular area. There is nothing in the agreement to show that the defendant was required to construct the house on a particular portion after leaving the proper offset, front offset and set back and the original approved map which was in the custody of plaintiff board is not placed on record and in the absence of the approved plan, it is very difficult to ascertain the unauthorized construction of the defendant on plot No. 17. The encroachment could also be calculated and ascertained on the basis of original plan or layout plan which again has not been proved or placed on the record. As such, the plaintiff has not been able to prove by leading cogent, reliable and convincing evidence as well as documentary evidence that the defendant has violated the terms and conditions of the agreement and has raised unauthorized construction in violation of the approved plan. Both the approved map and layout plan are admittedly in the custody of the plaintiff, but purposely withheld for the reasons best known to them. Had these plans been produced, they might have shown some other position than claimed by the plaintiff. Therefore, in the absence of these document, this Court don’t see any reason to disbelieve the statement of the defendant Ravi Dutt Prabhakar as DW-1 that he has not raised any unauthorized construction in violation to the terms and conditions of the agreement and has raised the construction as per the approved map. Even after the construction, the defendant obtained No Objection Certificate from the plaintiff board and got released the water and electricity connections. Had there been any unauthorized construction, No Objection certificate would not have been issued by the plaintiff board and the water and electricity meters could not have been installed in plot No.17. These facts further falsify the case of the plaintiff. Had there been any unauthorized construction, No Objection certificate would not have been issued by the plaintiff board and the water and electricity meters could not have been installed in plot No.17. These facts further falsify the case of the plaintiff. Thus, from the above discussions, it is clear that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that the defendant has raised any unauthorized construction in plot No.17 in violation to the terms and conditions as contained in Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement and in violation to the approved plan. The evidence of the plaintiff is not convincing, reliable, 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. 13. The net result of the above discussion is that the findings arrived at by the learned 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.