JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. 1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Una, District Una, (H.P.), in Civil Appeal No. 69 of 2003, dated 3.12.2005, vide which, the learned lower Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the then learned Senior Sub-Judge, Una, District Una, (H.P), in Civil Suit No. 216 of 1995, dated 5.5.2003. 2. Briefly stating facts giving rise to the present appeal are that appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiff’) is a statutory authority and is carrying on the functions of H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority. The plaintiff/board allotted LIG House No. 132, situated in H.P. Housing Board Colony at Rakkar, in favour of Jiwan Kumar son of Lachhman Dass. Shri Jiwan Kumar, executed Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement. He was accorded permission for transfer of house to his daughter Kusum Lata/ defendant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendant’). The said allotment was within a provision of some extension, which was to be carried out, after approval of the proposed construction, additions and alteration. The defendant submitted the plan for approval, which was approved by the plaintiff/board with certain modifications. The officials of the plaintiff/board in the month of September, 1994 found that the defendant was raising unauthorized construction, on the portion shown with letters ECGHIJKL on the allotted land shown with letters DCNM and the defendant had further encroached upon portion marked with letters ABCD belonging to the plaintiff/board. The matter was reported to Assistant Engineer, who issued notice directing the defendant to stop the unauthorized construction, vide letters dated 8.9.1994 and 30.9.1994, but the defendant did not stop the construction work. The encroachment and unauthorized construction had caused legal injury to the residents of the colony and spoiled the uniformity of the plan carved out for providing maximum amenities to the residents and infringed the rules and regulations. 3. Written statement was filed by the defendant and it is averred that the defendant had not encroached the land of the plaintiff. There was a deep ‘Nallah’ on the western side of the house of the defendant. During the year 1979-80, due to erosion the danger was caused to the building of the defendant. 3. Written statement was filed by the defendant and it is averred that the defendant had not encroached the land of the plaintiff. There was a deep ‘Nallah’ on the western side of the house of the defendant. During the year 1979-80, due to erosion the danger was caused to the building of the defendant. Jiwan Kumar, father of the defendant constructed a retaining wall in the year 1980, on the back side of his house. The retaining wall was constructed with the permission and active consent of the Engineer and other staff officials of the plaintiff/board. The ground floor was constructed by the defendant in the year 1987-88. The plaintiff/board visited the place so many times, but no objections were raised. The construction was completed before 8.9.1994, but till then no objections were raised by the plaintiff/board. The defendant had become owner of the encroached portion by way of adverse possession. 4. The learned trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction by demolition of unauthorized structure shown with letters CEFG and HIJKL in the site plan attached with the plaint as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file this suit by his act and conduct? OPD 3. Whether the suit is hit by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not within limitation? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 7. Whether the defendant has become owner of the suit land by adverse possession? OPD 8. Relief. 5. After deciding Issues No. 1 to 3 in negative, Issues No. 4 to 6 in affirmative, Issue No. 7 in negative, suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. 6. Feeling aggrieved thereby the plaintiff maintained first appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Una, that the findings of learned Court below are against the law and without appreciating the evidence and pleading of the parties to its true perspective. The learned Court below has not interpreted the documents correctly. The oral as well as documentary evidence is not appreciated to its true perspective. The learned lower appellate Court below affirmed the findings of the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The learned Court below has not interpreted the documents correctly. The oral as well as documentary evidence is not appreciated to its true perspective. The learned lower appellate Court below affirmed the findings of the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Now, the appellant has maintained the present Regular Second Appeal, which was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the Courts below have fell in error in holding that the suit is barred by principle of res-judicata? 2. Whether the two Courts below have erred in holding that the suit is not maintainable on account of hire and purchase agreement not containing a specific condition that in case of violation of the terms and conditions mentioned therein, the structure would be liable to be demolished?” 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf the appellant has argued that the learned Courts below have failed to interpret the documents correctly and not appreciated the evidence to its true perspective and the law is not correctly applied. 8. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has vehemently argued that the findings arrived at by the learned Court below are just reasoned and after appreciating the evidence to its true perspective. He has argued that the plaintiff has failed to prove their own documents on record and the original documents were withheld by the plaintiff. He has also argued that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record in detail. 10. From the perusal of record, Ex.D-1, copy of the plaint in earlier suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant and Ex.D-3, site plan, make it clear that the encroachment was shown towards western side. The plaintiff has not mentioned Khasra number of the encroachment, however fact remains that the plaintiff had earlier also maintained the suit in respect of the same encroachment, so the plaintiff even otherwise could have raised the plea in the earlier suit. Therefore, the plea of the plaintiff about encroachment is barred by the principle of res-judicata. There is no evidence to show that how the encroachment as alleged to the extent of 38.14 square meters is made by the defendant. Therefore, the plea of the plaintiff about encroachment is barred by the principle of res-judicata. There is no evidence to show that how the encroachment as alleged to the extent of 38.14 square meters is made by the defendant. PW-1 K.K. Kalia, Assistant Engineer and PW-2 Achhar Singh, Junior Engineer, also does not make it clear, as to when the plaintiff came to encroach upon the land. The extent of encroachment shown in Ex.D-3, copy of site plan filed in earlier suit also makes it clear that the plaintiff had shown huge area under the possession of the defendant. But, strangely enough, he has now come up with a case showing lesser area of encroachment. Defendant Kusum Lata (DW-1), has deposed that the disputed plot was purchased by her father, which was transferred in her name, as per Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement. She has asked the plaintiff to construct the retaining wall, as there was danger to the building due to the rains, but no wall was constructed and she herself has constructed the wall to save the building. The official of the plaintiff/board had been visiting the house and no objection was raised at the time of the construction and when the notice was received on 8.9.1994, then by that time the construction was complete. She has not raised any unauthorized construction over the land of the plaintiff and has raised construction only on the allotted plot. In her cross- examination, she has admitted that she had received notice Ex.P7, in which, she was asked to stop the construction, but by that time the construction was complete. She has also admitted that she has executed agreement Ex.P-6. She has also denied that she has raised construction without approval of the plan. Thus, from the evidence discussed hereinabove, the plaintiff is claiming mandatory injunction on the basis of Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement, however there is no clause in this agreement that in case of any encroachment or deviation in the plan, the building is liable to be demolished or the suit land is liable to be resumed. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim the relief of mandatory injunction on the basis of Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement Ex.P-6. The plaintiff is also barred by the provision of res-judicata. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim the relief of mandatory injunction on the basis of Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement Ex.P-6. The plaintiff is also barred by the provision of res-judicata. There is no demarcation report on record to show that the defendant has made any encroachment over the land of the plaintiff in order to support the claim of the plaintiff. Therefore, it cannot be said that the defendant had made any encroachment on the suit land. The plaintiff has also failed to place on record the approved plan of the Rakkar colony to show what type of design the plaintiff has planned and what type of deviation has been made by the defendant. The plaintiff has even failed to place on record the approved plan of the plot of the defendant, which has been approved by the Architect of the plaintiff, which was offered for sale in order to compare the plan Ex.P-4. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has got the plan of the house approved from the plaintiff, but no such approved plan has been placed on record. 11. For the reasons, as discussed hereinabove, this Court finds that there is no error in holding that the suit is barred by the principle of res-judicata, so substantial question of law No. 1, is answered accordingly. The plaintiff has failed to prove any deviation or violation of the conditions of Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement and the learned Courts below have appreciated the evidence to its true perspective and the law is applied correctly. So, substantial question of law No. 2, is answered holding that the findings of the learned Courts below that there is nothing in the agreement that the structure be demolished in violation to the terms and conditions, as contained in Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement are correct. 12. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that the findings arrived at by the learned Courts below are just, reasoned and after appreciating the evidence of the parties, which has come on record to its true perspective and the law is also applied correctly. In these circumstances, the appeal of the appellant is without merit, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Pending applications, if any shall also stands disposed of.