JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J —Heard. In Civil Suit No. 12/1 of 2006, appellant-plaintiff had filed in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Solan, District Solan, decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the ''defendants'') from causing interference in the land entered in Khata No.6, Khatauni No. 14, Khasra No. 25/3/4 measuring 0- 4 bighas situate in mauza Gatoli, Hadbast No. 889, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P. was sought to be passed on the grounds inter-alia that he is owner in possession thereof and that the defendants having no right, title or interest thereon are trying to encroach upon the same by raising construction of a road. 2. The defendants when put to notice have resisted and contested such claim of the plaintiff on the grounds inter-alia that they never threatened nor tried to encroach upon the suit land by way of construction of a road there. There is road already in existence over the suit land which bifurcate from Mallah road to forest guard hut. The same being the old road is duly recorded as such in the revenue record. 3. On the pleadings of the parties followings issues were framed by learned trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed? OPP. 2. Whether there is no cause of action? OPD. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable against the defendants? OPD. 4. Relief. 4. After holding full trial and affording the parties an opportunity of being heard, while issue No. 1 was decided against the plaintiff, issues No. 2 and 3 were answered against him. As a consequence thereof, the suit was dismissed. 5. Learned lower appellate Court has also dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 8.11.2016, under challenge in this appeal. 6. The legality and validity of the impugned judgment has been questioned on several grounds, however, mainly that the evidence available on record has not been rightly appreciated and as a result thereof, the findings recorded have vitiated. An application filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure is also stated to be wrongly decided. 7. 6. The legality and validity of the impugned judgment has been questioned on several grounds, however, mainly that the evidence available on record has not been rightly appreciated and as a result thereof, the findings recorded have vitiated. An application filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure is also stated to be wrongly decided. 7. On going through the record of the case and also analyzing the rival submissions, it would not be improper to conclude that both Courts below have appreciated the pleadings of the parties and also evidence available on record in its right perspective while arriving at a conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove his possession on the spot over the suit land. The demarcation report Ext. DW-2/A amply demonstrates that the entire suit land is under Joharji Mallah road. As per this document, no land is lying vacant on the spot. The plaintiff while in the witness box as PW-1 has admitted that the demarcation was conducted in his presence. The demarcation proceedings even were confirmed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Solan vide order Ext. DW-3/A. The said order has not been challenged any further and, as such, has attained finality. The demarcation report Ext. DW-2/A, therefore, clinches the entire controversy. When on the spot the suit land or any portion thereof is not lying vacant, learned Courts below have rightly declined the decree of injunction permanent prohibitory in nature, because such relief could have not been legally granted. Not only the facts of the case and the evidence produced by the parties on both sides but the law applicable has also been discussed and applied by both Courts below correctly. When the demarcation previously conducted in presence of the plaintiff, no local inspection was required to be conducted and as such, learned appellate Court has rightly declined the prayer to this effect made by the plaintiff in an application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC. 8. Such being the legal and factual position, no substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal as the concurrent findings recorded by both Courts below on appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the present case and also the evidence available on record calls for no interference by this Court. The appeal, as such, is dismissed. Pending application(s) , if any, shall also stand disposed of.