JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - The defendant is the appellant, who aggrieved by the judgments and decrees concurrently passed by the learned Courts below, has filed the instant appeal. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as the ''plaintiff'' and ''defendant''. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction on the ground that he was absolute owner in possession of the land measuring 0-5 biswas comprised in Khasra Nos. 1390/1356/1034(0-4), 1392/1358/1053 (0-1), comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No. 157/193 and is co-owner in possession of land measuring 1 bigha 11 biswas bearing Khasra Nos. 1357/1034 and 1359/1053, comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No. 158/194 min, situated in Village Bhogpur, Pargana Plassi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan,H.P. (for short the ''suit land''). It was further averred that even though the defendant was stranger to the suit land having no right, title or interest, yet he was raising construction forcibly over the suit land and, therefore, he should be restrained from doing so, hence, the suit. 3. The defendant filed written statement as well counterclaim. The subject-matter of the counter-claim was land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1490/1356/1034 (0-6) biswas and 1492/1358/1053 (0-1) biswas, situated in the area of Village Bhogpur, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan. The defendant claimed to be the owner in possession of this land and averred that since the plaintiff had no right, title or interest over this land, therefore, he should be restrained from doing so. 4. On 21.12.2001, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land? OPP. 2. Whether the defendant is interfering with the suit land without any right, title or interest? OPP. 3. Whether the defendant is owner in possession of the suit land in the counter claim? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff is interfering in the possession of the defendant? OPD. 5. Whether the counter-claim of the defendant is not maintainable? OPP. 6. Relief." 5. After recording evidence and evaluating the same, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed and the counter-claim filed by the defendant was ordered to be dismissed by the learned trial Court. 6. The defendant did not assail the decree of dismissal of counter-claim, however, he only assailed the judgment and decree that was passed in favour of the plaintiff by filing appeal before the learned first appellate Court. 6. The defendant did not assail the decree of dismissal of counter-claim, however, he only assailed the judgment and decree that was passed in favour of the plaintiff by filing appeal before the learned first appellate Court. However, the learned first appellate Court dismissed the same vide judgment and decree dated 10.01.2007, constraining the defendant to file the instant appeal. 7. On 24.07.2008, the appeal came to be admitted on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether the appellant having placed on record the Kisan Book in order to prove his ownership and possession over the land as described in the counter claim, therefore, the same was per se admissible and should not have been ignored? 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 9. At the outset, it may be observed that the question, as formulated, in fact, does not arise for consideration because admittedly the defendant did not assail the decree of dismissal of his counterclaim before the learned first appellate Court and is, therefore, precluded from assailing the same for the first time in this regular second appeal. 10. That apart, even if, the merits of the case are gone into, it would be noticed that even though the defendant did place the copy of ''Kisan Passbook'' on record, but then this document was not even marked much less exhibited and rightly so because it was only a photocopy. Once, the document has not been legally proved on record, obviously, it had to be discarded and could not have been taken into consideration much less read in evidence. Therefore, learned Courts below committed no error in dismissing the counterclaim filed by the defendant and, at the same time, decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff. 11. The findings recorded by the learned Courts below are based on the correct appreciation of the pleadings and evidence and, therefore, warrant no interference. 12. The substantial question of law is accordingly answered against the appellant. 13. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.