JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The plaintiff's suit for rendition of a decree of mandatory injunction upon the defendant for his dismantling the construction unauthorisedly raised by him upon the suit property, suffered dismissal, under concurrently recorded judgments and decrees by both the learned Courts below. In sequel thereto, the plaintiff/appellant herein is driven to institute the instant appeal herebefore. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff had instituted a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction as against the defendant. It is pleaded that the defendant was allotted a plot in MIG category No.35 in the social Housing colony, Bilaspur and a higher purchase agreement was also executed in between the parties. It is pleaded that the defendant constructed a house on the allotted plot and also made unauthorised construction and encroachment shown in the attached map measuring 1.5. x5 meters and 1.4 x5 meters in contravention of the H.P. Tenancy agreement. A notice dated 1.12.1993 was served upon the defendant not to raise the construction and remove the encroachment but defendant did not comply, hence, the suit. 3. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, he has taken the preliminary objections qua locus standi, maintainability and estoppel. On merits, he pleaded that he has constructed the house in presence of responsible officials of the plaintiff, who never objected and a certificate was also issued by the plaintiff that the construction work has been done since the defendant had applied for loan to LIC. The remaining allegations were denied by the defendants. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the defendant has raised construction on plot No.35 in contravention to the higher purchase tenancy agreement as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of injunction, as claimed for? OPP. 3. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the suit is barred by principle of estoppel? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit? OPD 6. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPP 7. Relief. 5. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant herein. OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit? OPD 6. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPP 7. Relief. 5. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the plaintiff/appellant before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 6. Now the plaintiff/appellant herein, has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court wherein it assails the findings recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission on 19.10.2005, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the plaintiff/appellant against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the judgment/decree passed by the first appellate court is perverse which leads to miscarriage of justice in view of the fact that the findings are contrary to pleadings, admissions made by the respondent/defendant which would have led to passing of judgment/decree in favour of appellant/plaintiff in the facts and circumstances of the case? 2. Whether the first appellate court below acted contrary to the principles of law of evidence giving its finding which are contrary to the evidence led by the appellant/plaintiff as well as Respondent/defendant. 3. Whether the findings arrived at by the first appellate Court below is perverse in the sense that undue apprehension have been casted on the departmental evidence produced by the appellant/plaintiff having no basis in law and documentary evidence led by the appellant/plaintiff which in the normal course of business is prepared and reliable, have been completely dis-regarded, by raising technical objection which finding of the court would do much harm, then benefit, to the public at large and would defeat the object for which the institution of the appellant/plaintiff have been constituted? Substantial questions of Law No.1 to 3. 7. Under a Hire purchase tenancy agreement, comprised in Ex.PW1/A, executed inter se the plaintiff vis-a-vis the defendant, property as described in schedule-I, appended therewith, stood allotted to the defendant. Substantial questions of Law No.1 to 3. 7. Under a Hire purchase tenancy agreement, comprised in Ex.PW1/A, executed inter se the plaintiff vis-a-vis the defendant, property as described in schedule-I, appended therewith, stood allotted to the defendant. The allotment made by the plaintiff upon the defendant was “of EWS plot No. No.35”, situated in Housing Colony at Bilaspur, measurement whereof is disclosed in Ex. PD, to be 50 square meters. In sequel, to the aforesaid exhibits, the defendant commenced construction upon the aforesaid allotted plot. During the course of his raising construction upon the aforesaid allotted plot, the official of the plaintiff purportedly noticed that the defendant, beyond the dimensions occurring in the relevant approved plan, hence raising construction upon the plot concerned, whereupon, the plaintiff was constrained to issue notice in respect thereto, notice whereof are comprised in Ex. PA and Ex.PB. Since, the service of notices, comprised in Ex.PA and Ex.PB upon the defendant, did not beget the desired result, hence, the plaintiff, instituted the suit against the defendants, wherein it sought a decree qua the defendant being directed to dismantle the unauthorised construction raised by him upon the allotted plot. Issuance of Ex.PA and Ex.PB upon the defendant, ensued from a report of the Junior Engineer concerned of the plaintiff, wherein, he disclosed that the defendant, beyond the purview of the relevant “approval”, purveyed to him for his raising construction upon the allotted land, hence raising construction upon the allotted plot, thereupon, his infracting the mandate of the relevant approved plan. The report of the Junior Engineer concerned “of the plaintiff”, whereafter/whereupon, notices comprised in Ex.PA and PB were served upon the defendant, remains unadduced in evidence nor any evidence stood adduced with respect to the fact of the J.E. concerned while visiting the spot at the time of the defendant purportedly raising construction, “his” in the presence of the defendant “making the relevant measurement”, besides his thereat noticing occurrence of deviations or digressions “made” by the defendant from the relevant approved plan, in the defendant raising construction upon the suit land, deviation whereof exceeding the area whereon “he stood” under the relevant approved plan hence authorised to raise construction, non adduction whereof, obviously foster a firm inference that the J.E. concerned unilaterally preparing the relevant report, report whereof also did not come to be placed on record by the plaintiff. In sequel, no reliance can be placed on a document which is not on record nor hence both Ex.PA and Ex.PB which stood issued in pursuance thereto, also stood anchored thereon, can be concluded to hold any sanctity. Preeminently also with the embodiments occurring in Ex.PA and Ex.PB resting upon a purported report of the JE concerned, thereupon Ex. PA and Ex. PB both stand visibly ingrained with a vice of theirs unjustly condemning unheard the defendant, besides in the plaintiff in issuing Ex. PA and Ex.PB upon the defendant, without its prior thereto seeking any repudiatary elicitations in respect thereof from the defendant, for thereupon enabling him to ripping apart the tenacity of the report of the J.E. concerned also fillips an inference that Ex.PA and Ex. PB, both suffer from a taint of gross non application of mind also in their issuance upon the defendant, the plaintiff infracting the mandate of audi alteram partem. In aftermath, the entire initiation of proceedings against the defendant, suffers from a gross imbalance. 8. Be that as it may, “during the course” of the plaintiff adducing its evidence, upon the relevant issue, “its” apart from concerting to prove Ex.PA and Ex.PB, it did not make any assiduous effort for adducing into evidence, the best documentary material “for” succoring its claim, evidence whereof, personifying that at the time of its junior engineer concerned visiting the site of construction, his associating the defendant in the relevant measurement carried by him with respect to the purported unauthorised construction/ encroachments, made by him, unauthorsied construction whereof stand depicted by its engineer in site plan borne in Ex.PW2/A, whereupon, Ex.PW2/A stands gripped with an inherent infirmity, infirmity whereof gripping Ex.PW2/A “is” aggravated by the factum of even at the stage of adduction into evidence of Ex.PW2/A, the plaintiff also not adducing any apposite documentary evidence qua preparation of Ex.PW2/A emanating “on the” Junior Engineer concerned associating, the defendant in the relevant measurement. Want of adduction of evidence aforesaid by the plaintiff rather bolsters a firm inference, qua Ex.PW2/A, and Ex.PA as also Ex.PB, holding no validity, each spurring from a thorough non application of mind besides each standing ingrained with a vice of theirs condemning the defendant unheard, hence, begetting infraction of the principle of audi alteram partem, therefrom, no reliance can be meted thereon. 9. 9. Furthermore, the plaintiff did not adduce the original of the construction plan into evidence. Though, the plaintiff espouses that there occurred deviation besides digression therefrom “at the” instance of the defendant, in his raising construction upon the plot allotted to him. Yet its failing to adduce into evidence, the original of the construction plan besides its failing to adduce into evidence the original of the apposite approval meted thereto “by the competent authority”, hence “stems an inference” that without the engineer concerned of the plaintiff holding possession of the approval accorded by the competent authority qua the construction to be raised by the defendant, his hence arbitrarily concluding that there occurring deviation therefrom “at the” instance of the defendant, in the latter raising construction upon the allotted plot. Corollary, of the aforesaid discussion is that, thereupon, “too” apart from the aforesaid inferences formed by this Court with respect to Ex.PA, Ex.PB and Ex.PW2/A suffering from infirmities, all the aforesaid exhibits holding no facilitation to the plaintiff “to anvil on” thereof proceed to institute a suit for mandatory injunction against the defendant. Dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff under concurrent judgments and decrees recorded by both the learned Court below hence does not suffer form any infirmity. 10. 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 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 not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. All the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the respondent/defendant and against the plaintiff/appellant. 11. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the instant appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgments and decrees are maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back.