JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.03.2006, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Una, District Una in Civil Appeal No. 77/2002, reversing the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2002, passed by learned Sub Judge 1st Class-(II), Una, H.P. whereby suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case, as emerged from the record, are that Shri Sarwan Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) averred that he is owner in possession of the land measuring 3 Kanals 10 Marlas bearing Khewat No. 929 min, Khatauni No. 1633, Khasra No. 3196 (old No. 9216/3203/1, measuring 2 Kanals) and Khewat No. 929 min, Khatauni No. 1631, Khasra No. 3197 (old No. 9217/3203/2), as per Jamabandi for the year 1986-87, situated in village Haroli, Tehsil & District Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) and has constructed his abadies and several shops over the same. It is averred by the plaintiff that he has leased one shop to defendant No. 1 in Khasra No. 3196 and the other shops are on lease with other persons. It is further averred that the defendants have started threatening to cause interference in the suit land and therefore, the plaintiff has prayed for grant of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the suit land or dispossessing the plaintiff and in the alternative suit for possession in case the plaintiff is dispossessed by the defendants during the pendency of the suit. In the aforesaid background, the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants. 3. Defendants, by way of detailed written statement, refuted the aforesaid claim having been put forth on behalf of the plaintiff and has taken the preliminary objections of maintainability, bar under section 57 of the H.P. Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1971. On merits, the defendants have alleged that they have no concern with Khasra No. 3197. It is averred by the defendants that defendant No. 1 is coming in possession of the land measuring 2 Kanalas comprised of Khasra No. 9216/3203 min as a tenant on payment of Chakota since long time and has also constructed his abadies over this land, which abuts the main Una-Haroli road and is valuable piece of land. It is averred by the defendants that defendant No. 1 is coming in possession of the land measuring 2 Kanalas comprised of Khasra No. 9216/3203 min as a tenant on payment of Chakota since long time and has also constructed his abadies over this land, which abuts the main Una-Haroli road and is valuable piece of land. It is further averred that defendant No. 1 has also built four shops over this land and one of his son Lekh Raj is running a maniari shop and the remaining area is being used as Bartan and the plaintiff has no concern with this land and shop of the defendant No. 1. It is also averred by the defendants that the land comprising of Khasra No. 9216/3203/1 min has been shown as "Kharkana" since 1973 to 1986 in the revenue papers. It is the claim of the defendants that the plaintiff has got prepared a false Jamabandi for the year 1986-87 from the consolidation staff showing the abadi whereas, Khasra Girdawari shows the land to be vacant. As per the defendants, the Tatima, got prepared by the plaintiff, in which the abadi has been shown, is also false. With the aforesaid submissions, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff. 4. By way of replication, the plaintiff, while denying the allegations made in the written statement, reaffirmed the averments made in the plaint and controverted the contrary averments made in the written statement. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues for determination:- "1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property/land? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file this suit? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff has concealed true facts, if so, its effect? OPD. 4-A. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction? OPD. 4-B. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent prohibitory injunction? OPP. 5. Relief." 6. Learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.8.2002 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 7. OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff has concealed true facts, if so, its effect? OPD. 4-A. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction? OPD. 4-B. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent prohibitory injunction? OPP. 5. Relief." 6. Learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.8.2002 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, plaintiff preferred an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Una, who, taking note of the pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by respective parties, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 8. In the aforesaid background, appellants-defendants filed instant Regular Second Appeal, laying therein challenge to the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge, Una, whereby suit of the plaintiff was decreed, with a prayer to quash and set aside the same. 9. This Regular Second Appeal came to be admitted on the following substantial question of law:- "(1) That the learned lower appellate Court has wrongly placed reliance upon the demarcation reports Exs.PW-6/A and PW-6/B, which are not in accordance with law and the same are in some other cases?" 10. Ms. Megha Kapur Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that the judgment passed by learned first appellate Court is not sustainable in the eye of law being against law and facts involved in the present case and as such, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. While referring to the evidence led on record by the respective parties, Ms. Megha Gautam, forcefully contended that learned first appellate Court, while reversing the findings returned by the learned trial Court, has failed to appreciate the evidence, be it ocular or documentary, led on record by the respective parties in its right perspective, as a consequence thereof erroneous findings to the detriment of appellants-defendants have come on record. She further submitted that appellants- defendants have been recorded as non-occupancy tenant in the land comprised in Khasra No. 9216/3203 min, measuring 2 Kanals in the Jamabandi for the year 1973-74. She further stated that the land is recorded as Gair Mumkin Abadi and in the subsequent Jamabandies, Ex. She further submitted that appellants- defendants have been recorded as non-occupancy tenant in the land comprised in Khasra No. 9216/3203 min, measuring 2 Kanals in the Jamabandi for the year 1973-74. She further stated that the land is recorded as Gair Mumkin Abadi and in the subsequent Jamabandies, Ex. D-1 to D-9, the aforesaid entry continued till 1986-87 and even subsequent Khasra Girdawari for the year 1981-86, Ex. D-6 further suggests that the entries are in favour of the appellants. 11. Ms. Megha Gautam, learned counsel, further contended that learned first appellate Court, while scrutinizing the evidence available on record, has failed to take note of the fact that the plaintiff changed his stand in the evidence from the pleadings and it is well settled by now that nobody can be allowed to plead his case beyond pleadings. Learned counsel further contended that bare perusal of documentary evidence available on record suggests that possession of the land in dispute is/was that of defendants and as such there is no occasion for the learned first appellate Court to grant injunction in favour of the plaintiff, who miserably failed to prove on record that he is in possession of the land in suit and as such impugned judgment passed by learned first appellate Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 12. Ms. Gautam strenuously argued that learned first appellate Court has fallen into grave error by placing reliance upon demarcations reports Ex. PW-6/A and Ex. PW-6/B because same do not relate to the case in hand. She further stated that even otherwise aforesaid demarcation reports could not be looked into by the Court below as the same were not in accordance with law. With a view to substantiate her aforesaid arguments, she invited the attention of this Court to statement of PW-6 Dulo Ram, who in his cross-examination admitted that he had not given any intimation to any party and as such no reliance could be placed upon the aforesaid demarcation reports, which, in no terms, could be said to be carried out in terms of instructions issued by Financial Commissioner. Learned counsel further contended that demarcation report Ex. PW-6/B suggests that the same was conducted in proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) and as such same could not be taken into consideration by Civil Court while deciding present controversy. 13. Learned counsel further contended that demarcation report Ex. PW-6/B suggests that the same was conducted in proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) and as such same could not be taken into consideration by Civil Court while deciding present controversy. 13. Per-contra, Shri Ajay Sharma, learned counsel representing the respondents, while inviting the attention of this Court to pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, contended that at no point of time objection, if any, came to be filed on behalf of the defendants against the aforesaid demarcation reports produced on record by the plaintiff. While inviting the attention of this Court to the judgment and decree dated 28.8.2002, passed by learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Mr. Sharma vehemently contended that bare perusal of the same clearly suggests that learned trial Court, while dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, failed to take note of aforesaid material documentary evidence led on record by the plaintiff suggestive of the fact that there are three shops of the plaintiff over Khasra No. 3197 on Una-Jejon road and there are also three rooms, which are in dilapidated condition and unfit for habitation. It clearly emerge from the perusal of aforesaid demarcation reports that boundaries of Khasra Nos. 3196, 3197, 3195 and 3194/1 tallies with each other and on spot there exists Khasra No. 3195, owned and possessed by Heeru, in between the land of the plaintiff and the land of the defendant and as such, the question of any boundary dispute alongside the Una-Jajon road between the parties does not arise. Mr. Sharma further contended that learned trial Court below, while ignoring valuable piece of evidence adduced on record by the plaintiff in the shape of demarcation report, proceeded to dismiss the suit merely on the statement of defendant, which was not sufficient to conclude that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land. Mr. Sharma further contended that Ex. PW-6/B, copy of report of Naib Tehsildar given to SDM, Una in a case filed under Section 145 Cr.P.C. also suggests that except one pucca shop of maniari, the possession on the remaining vacant land of Khasra No. 3196 is of the plaintiff Sarwan Singh and, as such, learned trial Court erred in ignoring the aforesaid valuable piece of evidence adduced on record by the plaintiff. While inviting the attention of this Court to Ex. While inviting the attention of this Court to Ex. PW-10, copy of the order passed by SDM, Una, in the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Mr. Sharma contended that those were discontinued in view of the pendency of the civil proceedings in the Court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Una, but the said suit filed by Shankar Dass against present plaintiff Sarwan Singh for injunction regarding Khasra No. 3194/1 was dismissed in default, as is evident from Ex. P-11. 14. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Sharma, while making this Court to travel through the demarcation report, made serious attempt to persuade this Court that demarcation was conducted strictly in accordance with law, more particularly, as per the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner and there is/was no requirement in law as such to produce the individual, who had given report as a witness, rather it was incumbent upon the opposite party, if aggrieved with the report to produce him as witness to elicit from him that demarcation was not carried out in accordance with law. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record of the case. 16. From the evidence available on record, be it ocular or documentary, it clearly emerge that there is no dispute qua the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over Khasra No. 3197 and controversy inter se parties is only qua Khasra No. 3196. It further emerge from the record i.e. pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record that Khasra No. 3196 came to be carved out from old Khasra No. 9216/3203, which further came to be split into different parcels of land, as is evident from the copies of Jamabandies Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-3, Ex. P-5 & Ex. P-6 as well as Ex. D-1, Ex. D-5 and the copy of Khasra Girdawari Ex. D-6. As per revenue record available on record, Khasra No. 9216/3203 min, measuring 2 Kanals has been shown to be in the ownership of Smt. Sheela Devi etc. and in possession of Shankar Dass as non-occupancy tenant. Similarly, Khasra No. 9216/3203/1 min, measuring 2 Kanals has been shown in the ownership of Smt. Sheela Devi etc. and in possession of present plaintiff Sarwan Singh as non-occupancy tenant, which means that both the parties were in possession of Khasra No. 9216/3203, measuring 2 Kanals each. and in possession of Shankar Dass as non-occupancy tenant. Similarly, Khasra No. 9216/3203/1 min, measuring 2 Kanals has been shown in the ownership of Smt. Sheela Devi etc. and in possession of present plaintiff Sarwan Singh as non-occupancy tenant, which means that both the parties were in possession of Khasra No. 9216/3203, measuring 2 Kanals each. It also emerge from the record that person; namely; Heeru is in possession of Khasra No. 9216/3203/2 and subsequently consolidation authorities gave this Khasra number a new number 3195. Copy of Misal Haquiat Istemal for the year 1986-87 Ex. D-2, further proves on record that Khasra No. 9216/3203/8/3 min was replaced to that of new Khasra No. 3194/1 min and the measurement of this land has been reflected as 2 Kanals, whereas kind of land has been mentioned as Gair Mumkin Abadi qua 0-10 Kanal and 1-10 Kanal as Kharkana in the ownership of Smt. Sheela Devi etc. and in the possession of defendant Shankar Dass as non-occupancy tenant on payment of rent. 17. In the plaint, plaintiff claimed himself to be owner in possession of Khasra No. 3196 (old Khasra No. 9216/3203/1 min, measuring 2 Kanals) bearing Khewat No. 929 min, Khatauni No. 1633 and Khasra No. 3197 (old Khasra No. 9217/3203/2), Khatauni No. 1634, total measuring 3 Kanals 10 Marlas, which shows that the plaintiff is claiming himself to be owner in possession of 2 Kanals of land from Khasra No. 3196 and 1 Kanal 10 Marlas from Khasra No. 3197 and the defendants have admitted the possession of the plaintiff over Khasra No. 3197, measuring 1 Kanal 10 Marlas and, as such, dispute remains with regard to 2 Kanals of land with regard to Khasra No. 3196, but perusal of copy of Misal Haquiat Istemal for the year 1986-87, Ex. D-3, clearly suggests that present plaintiff Sarwan Singh has been reflected as non-occupancy tenant of Khasra No. 3196, measuring 2 Kanals and the kind of land has been mentioned as Banzr Kadim and Gair Mumkin Abadi. Similarly, Khasra No. 9216/3203/2, which was lateron given new Khasra No. 3195, is owned and possessed by Heeru, who has not been made a party and there is no dispute about the same. At the same time, perusal of copy of Aks Shajra Ex. P-4 and Ex. P-7 suggests that Khasra Nos. Similarly, Khasra No. 9216/3203/2, which was lateron given new Khasra No. 3195, is owned and possessed by Heeru, who has not been made a party and there is no dispute about the same. At the same time, perusal of copy of Aks Shajra Ex. P-4 and Ex. P-7 suggests that Khasra Nos. 3196 and 3197, which are claimed to be owned and possessed by the plaintiff, are abutting to each other and Khasra No. 3195 is adjoining to Khasra No. 3196, whereas, Khasra No. 3194/1, situated next to Khasra No. 3195 also touches the Western side of Khasra Nos. 3197, 3196 and 3195. The plaintiff in support of his claim has also placed on record site plan Ex. PW-4/A, perusal whereof suggests that Khasra Nos. 3196 and 3197 are abutting the PWD road towards the Northern side, whereas, Khasra No. 3194/1 is abutting the PWD road towards the Southern side of Khasra No. 3195. The disputed shops over Khasra No. 3196 are situated abutting the PWD road. The plaintiff also placed on record demarcation report Ex. PW-6/A suggestive of the fact that the PWD road is situated abutting Khasra Nos. 3197 and 3196 towards the North Eastern side of Khasra No. 3195. As per aforesaid report, Khasra No. 3194/1 is abutting the PWD road towards the South Eastern side of Khasra No. 3195. 18. In the demarcation report Ex. PW-6/A, it has been categorically stated that there are shops of the plaintiff over Khasra No. 3197 on Una-Jejon road and there are also three rooms, which are on Khasra No. 3196 and are in dilapidated condition. As per aforesaid report, the boundaries of Khasra Nos. 3196, 3197, 3195 and 3194/1 tallies with each other and as such there is no question of any dispute about the boundaries alongside the Una-Jajon road between the parties. As per the report, no part of Khasra No. 3194/1 alongside the road touches Khasra Nos. 3196 and 3197, rather the same touches Khasra No. 3194/1 only towards the Western side. Similarly, this Court finds from the record that the plaintiff also placed on record demarcation report Ex. PW-6/B, which was conducted in proceedings pending under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in the Court of SDM, Una, who directed the Naib Tehsildar to conduct the demarcation. 3196 and 3197, rather the same touches Khasra No. 3194/1 only towards the Western side. Similarly, this Court finds from the record that the plaintiff also placed on record demarcation report Ex. PW-6/B, which was conducted in proceedings pending under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in the Court of SDM, Una, who directed the Naib Tehsildar to conduct the demarcation. In the aforesaid report, Naib Tehsildar specifically reported that as per the spot inspection, except one pucca shop of maniari, the possession on the remaining vacant land of Khasra No. 3196 appears to be of the plaintiff Sarwan Singh. 19. True, it is, that aforesaid proceedings initiated by SDM, Una under Section 145 Cr.P.C. later on discontinued in view of the pendency of the civil proceedings in the Court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Una, but the said suit filed by defendant Shankar Dass against present plaintiff Sarwan Singh for injunction regarding Khasra No. 3194/1, was withdrawn by defendant, as is evident from Ex. P-11, as such, it may not be sufficient to conclude that demarcation report mentioned above had not attained finality. 20. Leaving everything aside, there is no evidence adduced on record by the defendant to prove that demarcation, as relied upon by the plaintiff, was not carried out in accordance with law and more particularly instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner. Judgment passed by learned trial Court, whereby suit filed by the plaintiff came to be dismissed, nowhere suggests that learned trial Court took cognizance, if any, of the aforesaid demarcation report placed on record by the plaintiff. Learned trial Court, taking note of the fact that both the parties fought litigation before the quasi-judicial authority, simply ignored the demarcation report Ex. PW-6/A, placed on record by the plaintiff, by observing that same has not been conducted in accordance with law and instructions of the Financial Commissioner. It appears that learned trial Court before arriving at aforesaid conclusion failed to peruse the report Ex. PW-6/A and wrongly came to the conclusion that the parties were not present on the spot and PW-6 failed to take help of Musabi and other relevant documents, which are necessary for demarcation. Similarly, learned trial Court erred, while discarding the demarcation report Ex. PW-6/A and wrongly came to the conclusion that the parties were not present on the spot and PW-6 failed to take help of Musabi and other relevant documents, which are necessary for demarcation. Similarly, learned trial Court erred, while discarding the demarcation report Ex. PW-6/B, which was conducted in some criminal proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. while observing that since revenue officer, who had conducted the demarcation, has not appeared into the witness box, no reliance can be placed on the demarcation report. Finding, if any, as returned by the learned trial Court qua the aforesaid demarcation reports placed on record by the plaintiff, is totally contrary to facts because bare perusal of demarcation report Ex. PW-6/A clearly suggests that demarcation was carried out strictly in accordance with law in the presence of both the parties and none of the parties raised objection, if any, with regard to mode and manner adopted by revenue officer, who otherwise before conducting demarcation, fixed three pucca points and thereafter carried out demarcation on the spot i.e. Khasra Nos. 3196 and 3197. Similarly, perusal of Ex. PW-6/B suggests that revenue officer had carried out demarcation on the spot in terms of order passed by SDM, Una in the presence of the parties in accordance with law and, as such, there was no occasion for the trial Court to ignore the same while adjudging the dispute inter se parties. 21. In both the aforesaid reports it has been categorically held that there are three shops of the plaintiff over Khasra No. 3197 on Una-Jejon road and there are also three rooms, which are in dilapidated condition and unfit for habitation. Vide report Ex. PW-6/A, it has been categorically proved on record by the plaintiff that the PWD road is situated abutting Khasra Nos. 3197 and 3196 towards the North - Eastern side of Khasra No. 3195, whereas, Khasra No. 3194/1 is abutting the PWD road towards the South -Eastern side of Khasra No. 3195. Naib Tehsildar, in his report Ex. PW-6/B, has categorically held that as per the spot inspection, except one pucca shop of maniari, the possession on the remaining vacant land of Khasra No. 3196 appears to be of the plaintiff Sarwan Singh. The aforesaid findings, returned by the Naib Tehsildar in his report Ex. Naib Tehsildar, in his report Ex. PW-6/B, has categorically held that as per the spot inspection, except one pucca shop of maniari, the possession on the remaining vacant land of Khasra No. 3196 appears to be of the plaintiff Sarwan Singh. The aforesaid findings, returned by the Naib Tehsildar in his report Ex. PW-6/B, fully corroborates the version of the plaintiff as put forth in his plaint, plaintiff in plaint has repeatedly stated that he has rented one shop to the defendant. After having carefully perused the aforesaid reports, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that learned trial Court has fallen in grave error while discarding the demarcation reports Ex. PW-6/A and Ex. PW-6/B, which clearly suggest that the plaintiff is in possession of Khasra No. 3196. 22. At this stage, it may be noticed that during the pendency of the present case before this Court, this Court vide order dated 2nd November, 2007, taking note of the submissions having been made by learned counsel representing the appellants-defendants that he is in possession of shop on Khasra No. 3196, as shown in Annexure P-1, directed Tehsildar, Una, to visit the spot and ascertain as to whether the shop of the appellants, as shown in photograph Annexure P-1, is situated in Khasra No. 3196. This Court specifically directed the aforesaid revenue officer to demarcate the land to ascertain the factual position, who in his report dated 29.1.2008, copy whereof is/was supplied to both the learned counsel representing the parties, categorically stated/reported that as per spot inspection, appellant-defendant is in possession of one pucca shop of maniari, whereas possession of the remaining vacant land over Khasra No. 3196 is of plaintiff Sarwan Singh. Subsequent demarcation report, given by the revenue officer in terms of order passed by this Court, fully corroborates the reports Ex. PW-6/A and Ex. PW-6/B submitted by the local commissioner placed on record by the plaintiff and as such this Court sees no illegality and infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 23. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, this Court sees no illegality and infirmity in the judgment passed by learned first appellate Court and, as such, the same is upheld and that of the learned trial Court is set aside. Hence, present appeal fails and the same is, accordingly dismissed. 24. 23. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, this Court sees no illegality and infirmity in the judgment passed by learned first appellate Court and, as such, the same is upheld and that of the learned trial Court is set aside. Hence, present appeal fails and the same is, accordingly dismissed. 24. Interim direction, if any, is vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of.