JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. Since, both these appeals arise out of a common verdict pronounced by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 30-S/13 of 2004/2002 and in Civil Appeal No. 31-S/13 of 2004/2002, hence, both are liable to be disposed off by a common verdict. 2. RSA No. 116 of 2007 stands directed against the judgment and decree recorded by the learned First Appellate Court upon Civil Appeal No. 30-S/13 of 2004/2002, whereby, the aforesaid appeal preferred before it by the defendants/respondents herein against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court “stood allowed” whereas, RSA No. 117 of 2007 stands directed against the judgment and decree recorded by the learned First Appellate Court upon Civil Appeal No. 31-S/13 of 2004/2002, whereby, the learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred before it by the appellant herein “against” the judgment and decree pronounced by the learned trial Court, appeal whereof stood directed against the declining of the relief of mandatory injunction to the plaintiff by the trial Court. 3. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiff Smt. Susheela laid a civil suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and also for mandatory injunction against the defendants on the ground that she is owner in possession of land comprised in Khasra No. 1661/1, measuring 4 biswas, situated in Mauza Shangti, Sanjauli, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P. She had purchased 4 biswas of land aforesaid out of khasra No. 166, measuring 5.1 bighas from its owner through a registered sale deed and after purchase she was put in exclusive possession in a specific portion through a tatima. Smt. Susheela constructed a four storeyed house before January, 1996. Inder Singh also purchased land adjoining to the suit property and raised two lintels. On 8.11.1999, defendants started projection of their construction without leaving set backs and making any arrangement for drainage of water. During the pendency of the suit, it was also pleaded that despite injunction orders defendants continued uanuthorsied construction, raised 3 lintels without prior permission of Town and Country Planning Department and Municipal Corporation Shimla and after January, 2000 extended the projection towards the suit property and put unbearable load on the foundation of the building. This caused danger to the building. This caused danger to the building. The cause of action accrued on 8.11.1999 and still continuing and hence this suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction. 4. The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections inter-alia non-joinder of parties, estoppel and want of cause of action. The right, title and interest of the plaintiff was denied. The house was raised by the defendants in the year 1993 and it was raised in accordance with plan and permission granted by the competent authority. No encroachment was ever made. No cause of action accrued to the plaintiff on 8.11.1999. No construction was ever raised after January, 2000. 5. The plaintiff/appellant herein filed replication to the written statement of the defendants/respondents, wherein, they denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the plaint. 6. 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 for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit, as alleged? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action, as alleged? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material fact, if so, what is its effect? OPD 7. Relief. 7. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the latter Court under its verdict proceeded to partly decree the suit of the plaintiff vis-avis relief for permanent prohibitory injunction wherein it declined vis-a-vis the plaintiff the relief of mandatory injunction. In appeals, preferred therefrom by the aggrieved plaintiff as well as by the defendants before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the appeal carried there-before by the plaintiff/appellant herein, whereas, it allowed the appeal preferred there-before by the defendants, whereby, it dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 8. Now the plaintiff/appellant, has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeals before this Court, wherein she assails the findings recorded in the impugned common judgments and decrees rendered by the learned first Appellate Court. 8. Now the plaintiff/appellant, has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeals before this Court, wherein she assails the findings recorded in the impugned common judgments and decrees rendered by the learned first Appellate Court. When RSA No. 116 of 2007 and RSA No. 117 of 2007 came up for admission, respectively on 30.11.2007, this Court, admitted the aforesaid appeals instituted by the plaintiff/appellant against the common judgments and decrees, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted common substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether there has been misreading of oral as well as documentary evidence by the courts below? 2. Whether the courts below have erred by not resorting to the provisions of the Order 26, Rule 9 CPC suo motu in order to ascertain the factum and extent of encroachments/ overhanging projections on the land/property of the plaintiff by the defendants and such exercise was necessary in order to finally and effectively adjudicate upon the real matter in controversy? Substantial questions of law No. 1 and 2 9. Since, the substantial questions of law “as stand” formulated in both appeals are common besides interlinked and interconnected with each other, hence, they all are taken together for discussion and determination. 10. Under a registered deed of conveyance executed by the relevant owner, thereupon plaintiff Susheela acquired title vis-a-vis khasra No. 166/1, thereon, she completed construction before January, 1996. Upto the stage of the defendant raising two lintels on the land adjoining khasra No. 166/1, the plaintiff did not raise any protest in respect of the defendants, in theirs raising construction thereon, theirs infracting the mandate of the duly sanctioned building approvals accorded vis-a-vis them by the authorities concerned nor she raised any protest in respect of the defendants hence encroaching upon the suit property nor she raised any remonstrance in respect of the defendants not making any arrangements for disposal/drainage of water therefrom, whereafter, it percolated onto the land of the plaintiff, se-quelling concomitant damage to the adjoining building of the plaintiff borne on khasra No. 166/1. However, on 8.11.1999 when the defendants commenced construction of 3rd storey/lintel, the plaintiff on all facets aforesaid raised objections in respect of the defendants in raising construction thereon, theirs infracting the mandate of the building approvals accorded by the competent authorities vis-a-vis them, also raised objections qua the overhanging projections cast upon the 3rd lintel standing constructed without any provision for drainage of water therefrom onto the appropriate source, rather water emanating from the overhanging projections raised on the 3rd lintel constructed by the defendants hence percolating onto the land of the plaintiff whereupon the building of the plaintiff raised on adjoining thereto, hence khasra No. 166/1 suffering damage. The plaintiff did not adduce any evidence in respect of the defendants in raising construction upon adjoining khasra No. 166/1, theirs not prior thereto receiving any apt approvals from the competent authority concerned nor she adduced any evidence in respect of the construction raised by the defendant upon land adjoining khasra No. 166/1, se-queling theirs encroaching upon land borne on khasra No. 166/1. Also, no best documentary evidence comprised in a tatima, denoting, the factum of the extent or dimensions of overhanging projections purportedly raised by the defendants upon the 3rd lintel, stood adduced in evidence. Want of the aforesaid evidence, precludes this Court, to, pronounce any binding effective decree with precise or accurate delineations therein in respect of the extent or area of overhanging projections purportedly raised by the defendants on the 3rd lintel of their building, hence, warranting dismantling. Concomitantly, this Court is constrained, to, not pronounce a decree of mandatory injunction in respect of the dismantling of the overhanging projections, if any, raised by the defendants on the 3rd lintel of their building situated on land adjoining khasra No. 166/1. 11. Concomitantly, this Court is constrained, to, not pronounce a decree of mandatory injunction in respect of the dismantling of the overhanging projections, if any, raised by the defendants on the 3rd lintel of their building situated on land adjoining khasra No. 166/1. 11. Be that as it may, dehors any pleadings standing erected by the plaintiff in respect of drawing of any compromise inter se her and the defendants, compromise whereof is borne in Ex.PW1/B, the plaintiff yet relies upon the recitals borne therein, in respect of the defendants bending all the steel bars existing on the 3rd lintel, of, the relevant building also upon the articulations borne therein qua acquiescences of the defendants, to, not thereafter extend them for raising any overhanging projections thereupon, for hers canvassing that thereupon she was not enjoined to adduce any evidence in respect of overhanging projections, cast, by the defendants upon the 3rd lintel of their building, hence, infringing her right in respect of the building raised by her upon khasra No. 166/1. Even though, no pleadings in respect thereof stand constituted in the plaint, yet with Ex.PW1/B sanding executed inter se the parties at contest, during the pendency of the civil suit before the learned trial Court also with the counsel for the defendant while subjecting the plaintiff to cross-examination, his putting affirmative suggestions with e-choings therein in respect of validity of execution Ex.PW1/B inter se the parties at contest, does, dehors no leave being sought or granted by the learned trial Court for its adduction into evidence, render it to be yet appraisable. However, the evidentiary worth thereof is belittled by the factum, of, at the time contemporaneous to its execution, no, supplemental auxiliary evidence standing adduced, comprised in any valid demarcation of contentious adjoining estates of the litigating parties being conducted, whereafter, tatima with exact depictions therein of the area of the overhanging projections erected by the defendants on the 3rd lintel, also its holding reflections in consonance with the recitals borne in Ex.PW1/B, thereupon, EX.PW1/B is rendered un-bereft of any conclusive evidentiary solemnity, for hence firmly resting the controversy, qua thereupon rights, if any, of the plaintiffs in respect of the building raised by her, hence standing infracted. Moreover, the plaintiff was also enjoined to prove by adducing potent expert evidence that the defendants in raising overhanging projections on the 3rd lintel, theirs leaving, no provisions for drainage of rain water therefrom onto its appropriate source, rather water flowing therefrom entering onto the land of the plaintiff, in sequel whereof, imminent danger besides thereat arising to the building erected by her upon khasra No. 166/1. However, the aforesaid evidence is also amiss. Consequently, the plaintiff as concluded by the learned first appellate court, abysmally, failed to prove that the overhanging projection raised by the defendant upon the 3rd lintel, being, beyond the building approvals granted by the competent authority to the defendants also her failure to adduce into evidence the relevant records from the offices of the sanctioning authorities concerned, results in hers also failing to prove that the defendants in raising construction upon land adjoining khasra No. 166/1, theirs not prior thereto obtaining any valid sanction in respect thereof, also has failed to prove that the defendants in digression besides in deviation therefrom, hence proceeding to raise construction in a manner, whereby, rights, if any, of the plaintiff in respect of the building raised by her upon khasra No. 166/1 being infringed. Contrarily, with the plaintiff in her cross-examination conducted by the learned counsel for the defendants, acquiescing to the suggestion put thereat to her qua hers not leaving intact any set backs in the apt portions of her building adjoining the building of the defendants, thereupon, she rather tacitly probalizes the suggestion put to her by the learned counsel for the defendant with e-choings therein of the defendants in raising construction on the land adjoining khasra No. 166/1, theirs not digressing or deviating from the sanctioned plan, thereupon an inference is bolstered qua the plaintiff without leveraging her claims in the suit upon firm conclusive evidence, has yet therein sought frivolous reliefs against the defendants. 12. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant has contended with vigour that dehors want of conclusive firm evidence aforesaid, for thereupon the controversy engaging parties at lis being clinchingly rested, yet the learned courts below were enjoined with an obligation to suo moto order, for, the appointment of a local commissioner, whereupon, alone, the lis in suit would stand firmly clinched, whereas, the learned First Appellate Court omitting to suo moto order for the appointment of a local commissioner, its abandoning, its duty to elicit firm and clinching evidence for settling findings on the apposite issues, whereupon, he contends that the decree impugned hereat warrants interference. The aforesaid submission is highly illusory besides fanciful, un-bereft, of sound groovings in the apposite material existing hereat, comprised in the plaintiff initially making concerted efforts, to, adduce all the aforesaid firm documentary pieces of evidence, for thereupon succoring her claim in the suit, whereafter, in case any noticeable infirmity standing detected therein or ambiguity existing therein, would hence for begetting removals thereof constrain the learned First Appellate Court, to suo moto order for the appointment of a local commissioner. However, when the plaintiff has not initially made her endeavours to adduce the relevant best documentary evidence, for securing formidable findings being pronounced upon the relevant issues, she, cannot at this stage contend that the learned first Appellate Court was enjoined, to, suo moto order for the appointment of a local commissioner, for, the controversy engaging the parties being thereupon firmly rested, especially when any countenancing of the aforesaid espousal would sequel the ill fate, of, the effect of all the aforesaid failures/omissions of the plaintiff being scuttled besides it would scuttle the effect of all the aforesaid acquiescences of the plaintiff, whereupon, she probalises the factum of the defendants in raising construction upon land adjoining Khasra No. 166/1, theirs not making any encroachment upon the land borne on khasra No. 166/1 also when she probalises the factum of theirs not deviating besides digressing from the appropriate sanctions meted to them. Moreover, any approbation of the aforesaid espousal would sequel the ill fate of this court untenably ordering for a denovo trial of the civil suit, especially when the plaintiff has failed to adduce any cogent evidence in portrayal of the defendants in theirs raising construction on their land, theirs hence violating the mandate of sanctioned or approved building plans. Moreover, any approbation of the aforesaid espousal would sequel the ill fate of this court untenably ordering for a denovo trial of the civil suit, especially when the plaintiff has failed to adduce any cogent evidence in portrayal of the defendants in theirs raising construction on their land, theirs hence violating the mandate of sanctioned or approved building plans. Importantly also the plaintiff was under a solemn obligation to discharge the onuses of proving the relevant issues whereas, it being not the duty of courts concerned, to collect evidence for her for hence facilitating her in discharging the onus of proving the relevant issues. 13. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court are based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court has not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Both the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the respondents and against the appellant. 14. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the instant appeals, which are accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgments and decrees rendered by the learned First Appellate Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 30-S/13 of 2004/2002 and Civil Appeal No. 31-S/13 of 2004/2002 are maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back.