JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The plaintiff's suit for rendition of a decree of mandatory injunction upon the defendant for hers dismantling the constructions unauthorisedly raised by her 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 here before. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff Board filed a suit for mandatory injunction by demolition of unauthorised construction shown by letters EBFG and HIJKL as shown in the site plan, in, LIG House No.149, situate in H.P. Housing Board Colony at Rakkar, Tehsil and District Una, H.P. It has been averred that defendant applied for allotment of house on the basis of Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement and on the said application, the plaintiff allotted LIG House No.149 in favour of defendant. The defendant has paid all the installments tot he plaintiff and subsequently sale deed was executed in her favour on 16.06.1994, vide sale deed No.1002. The aforesaid house which was allotted to the defendant also contained provision of some extension which was to be carried out after approval of the proposed construction. The defendant submitted the plan for approval to the plaintiff Board and the same was approved with necessary modifications. It is averred that in the month of July, 1994, it was found that defendant was raising unauthorised construction on the portion shown by letters ABCD in the allotted land as shown in the site plan. The matter was reported to the Assistant Engineer of the Plaintiff Board, Rakkar, who issued notice dated 23.07.1994 but inspite of that defendant continued with the construction. The plaintiff board had designed the plan of the colony so as to provide maximum amenities to its residents and keeping in view the outlook of the colony in a planned manner and as such defendant was not allowed to infringe the rules and regulations which the defendant has willfully defied despite protest by the plaintiff. 3. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, she has taken the preliminary objections qua locus standi, maintainability and estoppel. On merits, the defendant has admitted para No.2 to 4 of the plaint but denied that there were conditions and stipulations contained in the Hire Purchase Agreement, as alleged in Para No.5 of the plaint. 3. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, she has taken the preliminary objections qua locus standi, maintainability and estoppel. On merits, the defendant has admitted para No.2 to 4 of the plaint but denied that there were conditions and stipulations contained in the Hire Purchase Agreement, as alleged in Para No.5 of the plaint. It has been alleged that extension has already been made by the defendant since 1982 and at that time the plaintiff did not raise any objection. The defendant is within her right to raise construction over plot No.LIG-149 as the defendant has now become absolute owner of the suit land subjected to the conditions contained in sale deed dated 16.8.1994. The defendant has also denied other allegations made in the plaint. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit? OPD. 3. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not within time, as alleged? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his acts and conduct? OPD. 6. 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 22.09.2005, 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 dated 2.2.2005 passed by first appellate court is perverse, being contrary to pleadings, admissions made by respondent/defendant and evidence on record, and the provisions of law, applicable, which would have led to passing of judgment/decree in favour of appellant/plaintiff and as such has led to miscarriage of justice? 2. Whether the judgment/decree dated 2.2.2005 passed by first appellate court is perverse, being contrary to pleadings, admissions made by respondent/defendant and evidence on record, and the provisions of law, applicable, which would have led to passing of judgment/decree in favour of appellant/plaintiff and as such has led to miscarriage of justice? 2. Whether the first appellate court below misread, misconstrued the terms of Higher Purchase Agreement, i.e., Ex.P-3 as well as the provisions of The H.P. Housing Board Act, 1972, its aims and objectives, building bye laws and regulations? 3. Whether the first appellate Court below acted contrary to the evidence and came to erroneous/perverse conclusion that the respondent/authority under the law must resort to other mode so as to settle the dispute before seeking demolition of construction, which very well supported the case of the appellant/plaintiff? 4. Whether the findings arrived at by the first appellate court below is perverse in the sense that departmental evidence produced in the form of witnesses and exhibits/documents have been belied without any substantial reason and the object of public interest have been kept aside, which would do much harm than good, to the public at large in case the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court is upheld? 5. Whether the findings of the first appellate court below is erroneous/perverse as its conclusion are contrary to the evidence which states that the unauthorised construction was done during the existence of the Higher Purchase Agreement i.e. Ex.P-3 and came to erroneous/perverse conclusion that the respondent/authority now after becoming the owner of the plot in view of the conveyance Deed Ext. D1, the appellant cannot enforce the terms and conditions of the Higher Purchase Agreement i.e. Ex. P-3 by concurring with the finding of the trial court, which decided issue No.4 in favour of the appellant was as such not entitled to relief prayed for? 6. Whether the respondent after becoming the owner of the plot in view of the conveyance deed Ext. D1, can do any type of alteration/deviation on the plot and the rules & regulations as applicable tot he plot situated in the Appellant area are not applicable to her? Substantial questions of Law No.1 to 6. 7. Under a Hire purchase tenancy agreement, comprised in Ex.P-3, 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 6. 7. Under a Hire purchase tenancy agreement, comprised in Ex.P-3, 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 LIG House No. No.149”, situated in Housing Colony at Una, the overall dimensions from outside are disclosed in Schedule 1 appended to Ex.P-3 to be 30 feet x 48 feet. The aforesaid house which was allotted to the defendant also contained provision of some extension which was to be carried out after approval of the proposed construction. For carrying out additions and alterations in the allotted house, the defendant applied to the plaintiff. Consequently, the defendant-board vide Ex.P-4 granted the permission the plaintiff to carry out additions and alteration in the allotted house as per the approved plan, comprised in Annexure P-5. In sequel, to the aforesaid exhibits, the defendant commenced additions & alterations/construction upon the aforesaid allotted plot/house. During the course of his carrying out additions and alterations in the allotted house, the officials of the plaintiff purportedly noticed that the defendant, beyond the dimensions occurring in the relevant approved plan, hence carrying additions and alterations in the house, whereupon, the plaintiff was constrained to issue notices in respect thereto, notices whereof is comprised in Ex. P-7. Since, the service of notice, comprised in Ex.P7 upon the defendant, did not beget the desired result, hence, the plaintiff, instituted the suit against the defendant, wherein it sought a decree qua the defendant being directed to dismantle the unauthorised construction raised by her upon the allotted plot. Issuance of Ex.P7 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 her for hers carrying out additions and alterations in the allotted house, hence raising construction thereon, thereupon, hers infracting the mandate of the relevant approved plan. Issuance of Ex.P7 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 her for hers carrying out additions and alterations in the allotted house, hence raising construction thereon, thereupon, hers infracting the mandate of the relevant approved plan. The report of the Junior Engineer concerned “of the plaintiff”, where after/whereupon, notice comprised in Ex.P7 was 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, deviations whereof exceeding the area whereon “he stood” under the relevant approved plan hence authorised to raise construction, non adduction whereof, obviously fosters 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.P7 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.P7 resting upon a purported report of the JE concerned, thereupon Ex. P7 stands visibly ingrained with a vice of its unjustly condemning unheard the defendant, besides in the plaintiff in issuing Ex. P7 upon the defendant, without its prior thereto seeking any repudiatory elicitations in respect thereof from the defendant, for thereupon enabling her to ripping apart the tenacity of the report of the J.E. concerned also fillips an inference that Ex.P7, suffers from a taint of gross non application of mind also in its 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. 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 issues, “its” apart from concerting to prove Ex.P7, 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 measurements carried by him with respect to the purported unauthorised construction/ encroachments, made by her, unauthorsied construction whereof stand depicted by its engineer in site plan borne in Ex.P8, whereupon, Ex.P8 stands gripped with an inherent infirmity, infirmity whereof gripping Ex.P9 “is” aggravated by the factum of even at the stage of adduction into evidence of Ex.P8, the plaintiff also not adducing any apposite documentary evidence qua preparation of Ex.P8 emanating “on the” Junior Engineer concerned associating, the defendant in the relevant measurements. Want of adduction of evidence aforesaid by the plaintiff rather bolsters a firm inference, qua Ex.P8 and Ex.P7 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. Furthermore, the plaintiff did not adduce the original of the construction plan into evidence. Though, the plaintiff espouses that there occurred deviations besides digressions therefrom “at the” instance of the defendant, in his raising constructions upon the plot allotted to her. 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 constructions to be raised by the defendant, his hence arbitrarily concluding that there occurring deviations 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.P7 and Ex.P8 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.