JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The plaintiff becoming aggrieved, from, the concurrent verdicts, pronounced, respectively by the learned Civil Judge concerned, upon, civil suit No. 238/16/2013, and, thereafter by the learned first appellate Court, upon, Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2017, (i) wherethrough, both the Courts respectively, rather dismissed, the, afore civil suit, and also, the, thereagainst constituted afore civil appeal, (ii) has hence, thereagainst rather instituted before this Court, the, instant Regular Second Appeal, (iii) wherethrough, he strives to beget reversal, of, the concurrent verdicts, pronounced against him. 2. Even though, the plaintiff, was, through, Annexure Ext. DW1/D, allotted hence government accommodation, yet, the allotment made there throughs, stood subsequently cancelled, through an order, embodied in Ext. DW1/E. The plaintiff has failed to adduce evidence, vis-a-vis, the echoings, made in Ext. DW1/A, being false or fictitious, in asmuchas, the House Allotment committee, recited therein, to, make the recommendations, for, cancellation, of, the order, embodied in Ext. PW1/D, never becoming convened, nor any minutes thereof, becoming drawn, (a) thereupon, and, besides when no evidence, has become adduced, vis-a-vis, the Officer, who, made Ext. PW1/A, being dis-empowered, to, make it, (b) thereupon the apposite order, of, cancellation of Government accommodation, as, made through, Ext.PW1/D, stands construed hence to be validly made. Dehors, the above, even though, no reason has been recited, in, Ext. DW1/A, vis-a-vis, the abslutest dis-entitlement, of, the plaintiff, for, his seeking hence allotment, of, government accommodation, rather, the, only reason, as occurs therein, is, vis-a-vis, paucity of residential accommodation, becoming hence, visited, upon, the ministerial staff, of, the Forest Department, (c) and, without the afore assigned reason, Ext.DW1/E, may not, become fully legally empowered, hence to, sustain, the, concurrent verdicts, made, on, anvil thereons, hence by both the learned Courts below. Nonetheless, when apart, from, the afore echoings, as stand embodied, in, the validly made order, borne in Ext. DW1/E, (d) the plaintiff was also enjoined, to, demonstrate that given, his, being an employee of the Himachal Pradesh Forest Corporation, hence, a, public entity, or a limited government company, (e) and, rather, regulated, by the appositely, drawn Articles, of, association, his there throughs, hence becoming also entitled, to, seek valid allotment, of, government accommodation. DW1/E, (d) the plaintiff was also enjoined, to, demonstrate that given, his, being an employee of the Himachal Pradesh Forest Corporation, hence, a, public entity, or a limited government company, (e) and, rather, regulated, by the appositely, drawn Articles, of, association, his there throughs, hence becoming also entitled, to, seek valid allotment, of, government accommodation. Even though, Articles 52(1) of the Articles of Association, provisions whereof are extracted hereinafter: "52 (i) Rules of the Company governing the conditions of service of the employees, provident fund and other rules, creation of reserve and special funds;" (f) do contemplate qua vis-a-vis, matters appertaining, to, service, of, employees, rather being reserved, for, a, decision becoming made thereon, hence, by the government, (g) and, when the aspiration, of, the plaintiff, to, seek allotment, of, government accommodation, falls, within the domain of, the, phrase "Service of employees," as, borne therein, (h) thereupon it was incumbent, upon him to adduce evidence, hence suggestive, vis-a-vis, the Rules, qua therewith, becoming, as, mandated therein, hence formulated, by, the government, and, specifically appertaining, to, the entitlements, of, the staff, of, Himachal Pradesh Forest Corporation, to, seek allotment, of, government accommodation, vis-a-vis them, rather, from the Allotting authority concerned. However, the plaintiff has not placed on record, the, afore document, either before both the learned Courts below, nor through, an, application, cast under the provisions, of, Order 41 Rule 21 of the CPC, hence before this Court, nor obviously has ensured the imperative placing, on, record, rather any apposite decision, becoming made, by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, hence within, the ambit of Article 52(1) of the Articles, of, Association, (g) and, appertaining, to, the staff, of Himachal Pradesh Forest Corporation, becoming there throughs hence entitled, to seek allotment, of, govt. accommodation. The effect, of, the afore omission is, qua the order borne in Ext. DW1/A, is, construed, to, stand validly made, and, also hence, the, concurrent decrees, made, by both the learned Courts below, becoming, not, amenable for any interference, from, this Court. No question, of, law much less any substantial question of, law, arises for determination. 3. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeal, and, the same is dismissed. DW1/A, is, construed, to, stand validly made, and, also hence, the, concurrent decrees, made, by both the learned Courts below, becoming, not, amenable for any interference, from, this Court. No question, of, law much less any substantial question of, law, arises for determination. 3. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeal, and, the same is dismissed. The impugned verdict, pronounced, upon, Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2017, on 17.1.2018, by the learned Additional District Judge (I) Mandi, hence affirming the verdict pronounced, by, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division),Court No. 3, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. on 21.1.2017, upon Civil Suit No. 238/16/2013, is maintained and affirmed. All, the pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.