Judgment and Order (Oral) : Heard Mr. K.N. Bhattacharji, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC from the judgment dated 04.06.2013, delivered in Title Appeal No. 05 of 2013 by the plaintiff. At the time of admitting this appeal, the following substantial question of law was framed by the order dated 11.12.2013 for hearing of this appeal : “Whether the first appellate court has misread the Exbt.4 documents, the report of the Survey Commissioner while arriving at the impugned finding?” The essential facts for appreciating the said substantial questions of law as framed at the instance of the appellant may be noted at the outset. 3. The appellant filed the suit being Title Appeal No. 40 of 2011 in the court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dharmanagar, North Tripura seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant-respondents in respect of the Schedule-B land as described in the plaint. To be noted that the Schedule-B land is the part of the Schedule-A land as described in the plaint. Even according to the plaintiff, the Schedule-B land is a vacant land. But the defendant-respondents in contravention of the judgment delivered in T.S. 09 of 2004 and T.S. 01 of 1988 had publicly declared that they would take possession of the suit land comprised in the plot No. 8045, 8046, 8047, 8048 and 8049 in Khatian No. 3195. Another plot bearing No. 12091 is also part of the Schedule-B land where a hut is standing. The trial court has framed the several issues interalia: “Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree as prayed for?” After recording the evidence and on appreciation thereof, the trial court has observed as under : 16. In order to prove the case the plaintiff has exhibited 5 documents which is original copy of khatian No. 3199 which is marked as Exbt.1, Judgment and decree of T.S. 4/08 passed by Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) marked as Exbt. 2, certified copy of Judgment dated 12.07.2011 passed by Ld. Addl. District Judge, Dharmanagar in c/w T.A. No. 6/10, certified copy of commission report dated 18.09.08 in c/w T.S. 04/08 marked as Exbt. 4(Series) and certified copy of trace map marked as Exbt. 5. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) marked as Exbt. 2, certified copy of Judgment dated 12.07.2011 passed by Ld. Addl. District Judge, Dharmanagar in c/w T.A. No. 6/10, certified copy of commission report dated 18.09.08 in c/w T.S. 04/08 marked as Exbt. 4(Series) and certified copy of trace map marked as Exbt. 5. The main contention of the plaintiff is that the defendants being defeated in the legal battle has taken the illegal path of occupying the suit land described in schedule B of the plaint and in this effect the defendants on 28.08.2011 at about 10.30 am proclaimed in the public that by force he will occupy the suit land and will construct the hut within the suit land. Now on perusing Exbt. 2 and Exbt. 3 (Series) and Exbt.4 (Series) which is the Judgment and decree passed by Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Dharmanagar, Ld. Addl. District Judge, Dharmanagar and the Survey Commissioner’s report it has transpired that the suit land which is described in Schedule B of the plaint is a suit path and this fact is further clear on perusing Exbt. 1 of the plaintiff and Exbt. A of the defendants. On perusing Exbt. 2, 3 and 4 (Series) it has already been decided specially in the report of the Survey Commissioner which is marked as Exbt. 4 (Series) that the suit path is the only usable road for the defendants for their entry into and exit from their plots No. 8045, 8046, 8047 and 8048. The report further indicates that the land in plot No. 8049 is lying vacant. So, Exbt. 4 (Series) read together with the pleadings and evidence on record as established that the suit path is the only means of ingress and egress of the present defendants to their shops and houses. Moreover, on close scrutiny of the evidences both documentary and ocular it is also decided that the suit path as shown in the schedule of the plaint is the Govt. Khas land belonging to P.W.D. This has been further corroborated by the report of Survey Commissioner which is marked as Exbt.4 (Series) and also by the Judgments passed by Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) and Ld. Addl. District Judge, Dharmanagar which is marked as Exbt. 2 and 3 (Series). So, all the evidences taken together collectively holds the fact the suit path is a Govt. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) and Ld. Addl. District Judge, Dharmanagar which is marked as Exbt. 2 and 3 (Series). So, all the evidences taken together collectively holds the fact the suit path is a Govt. khas land belonging to P.W.D. and the defendants are using the said path for a very long period of time as their only means of egress and ingress. The plaintiff has contended that the defendants have made a proclamation in their hearing and in the public that they will come very soon to occupy the suit path by constructing hut. But in this respect, the plaintiff has not adduced any sufficient evidence to prove such overt act on the part of the defendants regarding such encroachment or entry into the suit land. All the witnesses of the plaintiff during their examination-in-chief and cross-examination did not uttered a single word in this respect. 17. On the other hand, during crossexamination of the witnesses of the defendants Ld. Advocate on behalf of the plaintiff while crossexamining D.W.2 had tried to bring the story that the present plaintiff has lodged a case against him for eviction and in the said case of eviction judgment was passed against him but no such documents or record has been adduced by the plaintiff side to prove such fact.” 4. The finding as stated and as returned by the judgment dated 05.02.2013 delivered in T.S. No. 40 of 2011 was challenged by the plaintiff-appellants in the first appeal being T.A. No. 05 of 2013 in the court of the Additional District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar. The said appeal was also dismissed by the judgment dated 04.06.2013 holding as under : “8. The Exbt. 2 and Exbt. 3 (Series) and Exbt. 4 (Series) i.e. the Judgment and decree of Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Dharmanagar, Ld. Addl. District Judge, Dharmanagar and the Survey Commissioner’s report clearly show that the B schedule suit land is a path and it is the only means of the defendants for their entry into and exit from their plot nos. 8045, 8046, 8047 and 8048. The Exbt. 1 of the plaintiff and Exbt. A if the defendants also lend credence to this aspect. The report of the survey commissioner also shows that the plot No. 8049 is lying vacant. So, the Exbt. 8045, 8046, 8047 and 8048. The Exbt. 1 of the plaintiff and Exbt. A if the defendants also lend credence to this aspect. The report of the survey commissioner also shows that the plot No. 8049 is lying vacant. So, the Exbt. 4 (Series) combined with the pleadings and evidence on record do evince that the suit path is the only means of ingress and egress of the defendant-respondents to their shops and houses. Further, the evidence and materials on record i.e. the report of Survey Commissioner Exbt. 4(Series) and the Judgments passed by Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) and Ld. Addl. District Judge, Dharmanagar, marked as Exbt. 2 and 3 (Series) also make it out that the suit path as shown in the schedule B of the plaint is Govt. khas land belonging to the P.W. Department. So, the combination of all the evidence and materials on record vindicate the fact that the suit path is a Govt. khas land belonging to P.W.D. and the defendants-respondents are using the said path for a very long period of time as their only means of egress and ingress.” Against the said concurrent finding of fact, the present appeal has been preferred. 5. Mr. K. N. Bhattacharji, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, having referred to the Exbt. 4 [report of the Survey Commissioner] has submitted that the report and the hand sketch map annexed with the said report does not tally at all. However, Mr. Bhattacharji, learned senior counsel has submitted that the main part of the suit land has been correctly shown in the map and the path for egress and ingress from the suit land has also been shown correctly. But that physical description has not been borne in the report submitted by the Survey Commissioner. When this court asked Mr. Bhattacharji, learned senior counsel whether for that reason relating to the hand sketch map as prepared on the basis of the field enquiry, the report of the Survey Commissioner was challenged by the plaintiff-appellants ? Mr. Bhattacharji, learned senior counsel in his usual fairness has submitted that no such challenge has been thrown against the said report and the report was accepted by the trial court. This court on scrutiny finds that no ground of objection taken against such report in the memorandum of appeal filed before the court of the Additional District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar. This court on scrutiny finds that no ground of objection taken against such report in the memorandum of appeal filed before the court of the Additional District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar. Finally, Mr. Bhattacharji, learned senior counsel has submitted that after filing of this appeal, the parties after substantive deliberation has come to an agreement but Mr. Bhattacharji, learned senior counsel has further submitted that this subsequent events are not borne in the pleadings or no agreement has been submitted before this court. 6. Situated thus, this court is of the clear view that whatever the subsequent event that had taken place or has taken shape, this court cannot direct its consideration to those matters unless those are brought on the records. That apart, this court does not find that the Survey Commissioner’s report or the hand sketch map attached thereto, can help the plaintiff-appellants by giving a handle for fresh lease of life inasmuch even the plaintiff has stated that the suit land as shown in the hand sketch map is a vacant land and the Survey Commissioner’s report also portrays that land as a vacant land but what he has additionally stated is that the said land is a khash land. 7. Mr. Bhattacharji, learned senior counsel by dilating that aspect of the matter has submitted that that observation is against the judicial pronouncement in the previous suits. This court after scrutiny of the records finds that the suit is purely structured on the provisions of Section 38(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. As such, the first and foremost consideration before the courts below was that whether there was any threat to the possession of the plaintiff-appellants. Both the courts below has drawn a concurrent finding that since the suit land is vacant whether khash or private, there cannot be any perceived threat and as such, the suit has been dismissed. 8. This court does not find any infirmity in the findings of the courts below and as such, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 04.06.2013, delivered in T.S. 05 of 2013. 8. This court does not find any infirmity in the findings of the courts below and as such, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 04.06.2013, delivered in T.S. 05 of 2013. Before parting with the records, it may be mentioned that whether the suit land is constituted of the khash land or private land, has not been decided in any way by this court and as this issue shall therefore remain open for the parties to agitate in the legal action. The appeal stands dismissed. Send down the LCRs after preparation of the decree.