JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The plaintiffs' suit for rendition of a decree for mandatory injunction, with, consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction being rendered qua the passage in dispute, was, under concurrent pronouncements recorded thereon, by both the learned Courts below, hence, decreed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and against the defendants seeking declaration that there is a path show shown as ABCD in the site plan which is being enjoyed by the plaintiffs for long and the defendants have got no right, or title to obstruct it, it being a Rasta Share Aam in the land comprising khasra No.415. The defendants who purchased the land comprising khasra No.1013 from one Mangla obstructed the passage by installing an iron gate over it and thereby the plaintiffs have been obstructed from proceeding to their houses from the bazar, whereas, this passage was being enjoyed by them for long. The plaintiffs had also sought a decree of mandatory injunction directing the removal of the iron gate raised by the defendants. It has also been averred that the passage in addition to going to the house, his being also used to proceed to the fields and is within the Lal Lakeer (Abadi deh land). This land is being enjoyed by the plaintiff and other villagers. Thus the suit. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, it is averred that the path claimed never existing to be utilized by the plaintiff but it is exclusive passage leading to the house of the defendants and the defendants had earlier constructed a gate in the year 1972 which was wooden gate but in the year 1995, the defendants after removing the wooden gate constructed an iron gate over there. Prior to it, the defendants were tethering their animals over this land. Prior to it, the defendants were tethering their animals over this land. It has been averred that prior to the settlement operation the Share-Aam-Rasta was in the land comprising khasra No.415 which was on the four marlas but during settlement operation of the land of khasra No.1013 was merged into the khasra No.415 which was earlier bearing khasra No.930 and thereby merging the land of another khasra No. which was earlier owned by one Mangla and was thereafter purchase by the defendants the area of land showing Share-Aam-Rasta comprising khasra No.415 has been increased, whereas, the area of land of defendants has been decreased. Thereby depriving the defendants of the valuable rights. The matter was taken up before the Settlement Officer, who decided in favour of defendants and necessary corrections were ordered. Thereafter the matter was taken to the Court of Divisional Commissioner by the plaintiffs but that revision petition was dismissed. As per the latest record the area of land comprising khasra No.415 has been decreased to the area which was earlier having four marlas and thus the path claimed is not available to the plaintiff and the iron gate has rightly been constructed which is in the ownership and possession of the defendants. 4. The plaintiffs/respondents herein filed replication to the written statement of the defendants/appellants herein, wherein, they denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and reasserted the averments, made in the plaint. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the passage mentioned ABCD shown in red colour in the site plan attached, is a public passage as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not legally maintainable in the present form? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to sue the defendants? OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct from bringing the present suit? OPD. 7. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD. 8. OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to sue the defendants? OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct from bringing the present suit? OPD. 7. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD. 8. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands and have suppressed material facts, as alleged, if so, its effect? OPD. 9. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is bad for non joiner of necessary parties? OPD. 10. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is bad for mis joinder of causes of action? OPD. 11. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the defendants/appellants, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 7. Now the defendants/appellants herein, have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court wherein, they assail the findings recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission , this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the defendants/appellants against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether both the Courts have committed grave error of law and jurisdiction in not appreciating that the rights of easement as claimed by the plaintiffs over the suit land, lacked proper pleadings and proof and also that such suit was incompetent for right of passage by easement of prescription and necessity together? Have not courts below acted in erroneous and perverse manner in not taking into consideration the bare provisions of Easement Act? 2. Whether both the courts have misdirected themselves in not relying on the latest revenue entries which have presumption of truth attached to them, which is considered would have entailed in dismissal of the suit? Substantial questions of Law No.1 and 2. 8. 2. Whether both the courts have misdirected themselves in not relying on the latest revenue entries which have presumption of truth attached to them, which is considered would have entailed in dismissal of the suit? Substantial questions of Law No.1 and 2. 8. Upon suit khasra number 415, the plaintiffs' averred right of its user, as a passage, by them, for theirs reaching the bazar, (i) whereas in the defendants erecting an iron gate upon the aforesaid passage, hence are espoused in the plaint, to unlawfully forbid the plaintiffs from using the aforesaid path, (ii) hence, the plaintiffs claimed rendition of a decree, for permanent prohibitory injunction, for restraining the defendants, from, preventing them from using passage delineated, as, ABCD in the site plan, appended with the plaint, (iii) also claimed a decree for mandatory injunction being pronounced vis-a-vis the defendants, for the latter demolishing the iron gate erected by them, upon, the passage delineated, as ABCD in the site plan, appended with the plaint. 9. The defendants instituted a written statement to the plaint, wherein, they espoused (i) of the propagation, of, the plaintiffs of theirs holding since times immemorial, a right of easement, upon, the suit path recorded in the revenue record as “shre-aam-rasta” being unacceptable, (ii) given theirs holding apposite accesses from a route alternative thereto. However, with reflections occurring, in Ex.P3/A, Ex.P-1 and P4/A, of suit khasra number being reflected therein as “shre-aamrasta”, hence, the plaintiffs' claim for its apposite user is lawful, dehors theirs holding alternative thereto accesses to reach the bazar. Consequently, the plaintiffs' suit for user of path borne in suit kahsra No.415, is properly constituted, even if, they purportedly apart from the suit khasra number, hold, an alternative path, for reaching the bazar. 10. Consequently, the plaintiffs' suit for user of path borne in suit kahsra No.415, is properly constituted, even if, they purportedly apart from the suit khasra number, hold, an alternative path, for reaching the bazar. 10. Be that as it may, the plaintiffs' were entailed with a dire legal necessity, to prove (i) that the reflections borne in Ex.P1, proven by PW-1, wherein the dimensions of the recorded suit “Share-aam-rasta”, are embodied, (ii) also wherein he elucidates the points of commencement and termination of the suit “path” borne, on suit kahsra No.415, (iii) standing prepared by PW-1, with his evidently in contemporaneity of its preparation, holding, the relevant settlement map/aks musabi; (iv) his borrowing the dimensions, of the path reflected in Ex.P-1, from, the relevant apt aks musabi/settlement map, (v) whereafter, his proceeding to relay the aforesaid dimensions borrowed by him from the Aks Musabi, onto the lands, apposite vis-a-vis the lands borne in suit khasra No.415. (vi) whereupon, Ex.P-1, would be formidably concluded to appertain to the suit path. For making the aforesaid discernments, an allusion to the testification, of PW-1 is imperative, (vii) wherein he is unable to articulate, of, his at the time of his preparing Ex. P-1, his carrying the apt aks musabi/settlement map, (viii) obviously hence he has also been unable to communicate therein, of, his therefrom making borrowings, of, the dimensions of suit kahsra No.415, whereafter, he relayed them onto the ground/land apposite vis-a-vis suit khasra number. In aftermath, lack of the aforesaid articulations in the testification of PW-1, who prepared Ex.P-1, contrarily constrain a conclusion of (ix) PW-1 imprecisely and conjecturally preparing EX.P-1; (x) the reflections borne in Ex.P-1 being amenable to a construction of theirs bearing no linkage nor holding any connectivity with suit kahsra No.415. Consequently, for lack of efficacious proof being lent qua Ex.P-1 carrying precise linkage with suit kahsra No. 415, rendered any imputation of credence thereon, to be wholly insagacious. Apart therefrom any reliance imputed vis-a-vis Ex. P-3, exhibit whereof is the report of the Local Commissioner, who, therein has made alike inapt communications vis-a-vis those rendered by PW-1 also hence for alike infirmities gripping Ex.P-1, proven by PW-1, also thereupon renders, Ex. Apart therefrom any reliance imputed vis-a-vis Ex. P-3, exhibit whereof is the report of the Local Commissioner, who, therein has made alike inapt communications vis-a-vis those rendered by PW-1 also hence for alike infirmities gripping Ex.P-1, proven by PW-1, also thereupon renders, Ex. P-3 to be not carrying any probative vigour, (xi) for thereupon making any firm conclusion, of, the plaintiffs proving qua thereupon, theirs, firmly establishing, of, the defendants by purportedly erecting an iron gate upon suit kahsra number, theirs hence impeding or forbidding the plaintiffs from using it as a path, for enabling theirs accessing to bazar, (xii) nor it can be concluded that by theirs purportedly erecting an iron gate upon the suit khasra numbers, theirs precluding its user by the plaintiffs. Consequently, the decree for permanent prohibitory injunction as well as for mandatory injunction was not pronounceable against the defendants as inaptly done by both the learned Courts below. 11. Since, the best documentary evidence, adduced by the plaintiffs, for proving the averments borne in the plaint, is, for all the reasons aforestated, hence, infirm, thereupon, oral evidence, if any, adduced by the plaintiffs, is, neither a befitting substitute thereto nor is a befitting piece, of evidence, for enabling the plaintiffs, to contend that their suit claim, stands formidably proven. 12. During the pendency of the instant appeal before this Court, the counsel, for the defendants/appellants herein, has instituted before this Court, an application bearing CMP No. 423 of 2009, application whereof, is cast under the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC , wherein they seek the leave of this Court, to adduce on record, a verdict pronounced by the learned Financial Commissioner, wherein, he has affirmed, the findings recorded by the Revenue Officer concerned, qua the dimensions of old khasra No.930, wherefrom suit khasra No.415, was carved, being untenably increased from four marlas, to about 15 marlas. Since, this Court for all the reasons recorded hereinabove, has pronounced that the plaintiffs' endeavour, to prove their suit claim, vis-a-vis the suit khasra number, being founded, upon infirm evidence, (i) thereupon, this Court deems it fit, to, not afford any relief vis-a-vis the defendants/applicants, vis-a-vis adduction into evidence, of the order pronounced by the learned Financial Commissioner, (ii) given its adduction being neither just nor essential for deciding the controversy. Preeminently also any occasion for granting the apposite leave, to the defendants/applicants, would arise, only when the Local Commissioner concerned and PW-1, had carried, valid demarcations of the suit kahsra number, whereupon the effects thereof would stand denuded by the order rendered by the Financial Commissioner, (iii) whereas, when this Court hereinabove concludes, of, the aforesaid apt pieces of documentary evidence prepared by PW-1 and by the Local Commissioner concerned, being infirm nor theirs carrying any evidentiary worth, (iv) thereupon, it is also befitting to decline the apposite leave, to the defendants/applicants. Accordingly, both the substantial questions of law, are answered in favour of the appellants and against the respondents. 13. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court as well as by the learned trial Court are not based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court as well as the learned trial Court have excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. 14. In view of the above discussion, the instant appeal is allowed and the impugned judgments and decrees rendered by both the learned Courts below are set aside. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back.