JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The plaintiffs' suit for rendition of a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, and, in the alternative for possession, stands decreed, by the learned trial Court, and, in an appeal carried therefrom by the aggrieved defendants, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter court has also rendered a verdict hence affirming the verdict made by the learned trial Court. The defendants/appellants herein are aggrieved therefrom, hence, have instituted the instant appeal before this Court. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a s suit with the averments that he is owner in possession of the suit land as detailed in the plaint, and, the defendants have got no right, title or interest over the suit land. It has been averred that the defendants on 2.9.1998 started causing unlawful interference in the suit land by collecting construction material with the aim to raise construction. Despite requesting not to do so, they continued with the interference. It has been averred that the suit land had been allotted to the plaintiff being a landless and is coming in his ownership since the allotment. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, preliminary objections have been taken qua estoppel, cause of action, maintainability, non joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties. On merits, it had been averred that the suit land is forest land and thereby could not be allotted and in case an allotment has been made that is illegal and liable to be cancelled. It had also been averred that the defendant is in possession of part of the suit land comprised in Khasra no.1481 and had constructed a cow shed upon this land. Bamboo plants had also been planted. The possession is since the time of ancestors of defendants and the averments made by the plaintiff are absolutely wrong. The defendants had claimed nothing over the remaining part of the suit land except on Khasra number. It had also been averred that the possession of defendants being open, hostile, continuous and to the knowledge of the plaintiff, the defendant shave become owner by way of adverse possession. 4. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendant, wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement(s) and re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the plaint. 5. 4. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendant, wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement(s) and re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the plaint. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the decree of permanent and prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the alternate relief of possession, as prayed for? OPP. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 4. Whether suit is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties? OPD. 5. Whether plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD. 6. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD. 7. Whether suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 8. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD. 8-A. Whether defendants have become owners of Khasra No.1481 by way of adverse possession, as alleged? OPD. 9. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by, aggrieved defendant(s), before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the, appeal, and, affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 7. Now the defendants/appellant(s) herein, have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal, before, this Court, wherein they assail the findings, recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission, on 14.05.2008, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the defendant(s)/appellant(s) against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether both the courts below committed grave procedural illegality and irregularity in denying the relief of production of documents by arbitrarily rejecting the application under Order 8, Rule 1(3) CPC filed before the trial Court and under Order 41, Rule 27, filed before the lower appellate Court? 2. Whether both the courts below have put wrong reliance on the report of the local commissioner without adverting to the proper procedure and law as envisaged under Order 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure? Substantial questions of Law No.1: 8. 2. Whether both the courts below have put wrong reliance on the report of the local commissioner without adverting to the proper procedure and law as envisaged under Order 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure? Substantial questions of Law No.1: 8. The learned counsel appearing for the aggrieved defendants/appellants herein, has contended with much vigour before this Court, (i) that the order of dismissal, made, by the learned trial Court, on 10.08.2005, upon, an application preferred there before, under, the provisions, of, Order 8, Rule 1(3) of the CPC, wherein, the aggrieved defendants sought leave to adduce documents, as also espoused leave, to, adduce evidence thereon, hence is infirm, (ii) and, rather has precluded rendition of apt findings, upon, apposite issue No.4, appertaining to non joinder, and, mis joinder, of, necessary parties. The afore order of dismissal pronounced by the learned trial Court, upon, the afore application, prima facie appears to suffer, from, an infirmity, (iii) given there through, the, defendants striving to contest, the, plaintiff's espousal qua the relevant suit khasra numbers being validly allotted to him, by the government of Himachal Pradesh, given his, being a landless person, (iv) AND, though the defendants reared a challenge qua the validity, of, the apposite allotment of the suit khasra numbers, by the government, by theirs in their written statement, hence, pleading qua the relevant suit khasra numbers rather being reflected, as, forest land, in, the revenue papers, thereupon, it being unallotable, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff. Moreover, the afore challenge, stood also , echoed by the defendants, in their written statement, instituted to the relevant paragraph of the plaint, and, with the revenue records, as, appertaining to the suit khasra numbers, upon, hence bearing evident concurrence therewith, (v) thereupon, the aggrieved defendant(s) would hence hold a right to contest, that, the afore order of dismissal pronounced, by the learned trial Court, (vi) upon, the afore application being un merit worthy, and, would also be enabled hence to further contend, that, for want of grant, of, espoused leave, (vii) hence, theirs being concomitantly forbidden to adduce evidence qua therewith, thereupon, the findings adversarial to him/them, as, pronounced upon issue No.4, rather warranting interference by this Court. The reasons, qua, pendency, of, a CWP before this Court, wherein challenge, is, made to the relevant allotment, as, assigned by the learned trial Court, for not, considering the defendants' espousal, hence, challenging the allotment of the suit land to the plaintiff, and, hence it declining the apt relief, is also misplaced, as no material, is, placed on record, that, the High Court, when, seized with the matter, also restraining the learned Civil Judge, to proceed with the lis. 9. Furthermore, in the afore endeavour, a perusal of the jamabandi appertaining to the suit land, and, appertaining, to the year 1978-79, and, enclosed in Ex.D2, (a) discloses that the some of the suit khasra numbers, as, echoed therein rather carrying, the, classification of "Jangal Mahkuba gare Mahduda". In the column of ownership thereof, the State of Himachal Pradesh is recorded as owner, (b) and, in the column of possession, and, cultivation thereof, the, predecessor-in interest of the plaintiff, and, one Smt. Mansa, besides the forest department are respectively disclosed, to be holding possession thereof. Similarly, Ex.D-3, exhibit whereof, is, a jamabandi appertaining to the suit land, and, appertains to the year 1983-84, hence rather alike therewith echoings occur. However, 10 years therefrom, rather in the jamabandi, for the year 1993-94, embodied in Ex. D-4, the aforesaid entries occurring, in the afore jamabandi, more especially, vis-a-vis, the prior thereto jamabandi, as, appertaining, to, the year 1988-89, rather reflect(s) a palpable change in the afore echoings, vis-avis, the suit khasra numbers, (c) wherein the suit khasra numbers, rather are reflected, to, carry, the, classification, of, "Kuhali Abal". It appears that, in, the interregnum, since, the year 1988-89 upto 1993-94, whereat the allotment of land, appears to be made, vis-avis the plaintiff, by the State Government, the, plaintiff brought the suit khasra numbers, to cultivation, hence, the afore requisite changes obviously occurred. The afore discussion, unfolds, that the learned trial Court was enjoined, to not, in a perfunctory manner, reject the afore application , rather was required to make, an affirmative order thereon, and, also was required to permit the aggrieved defendants, to, adduce evidence thereon. The afore discussion, unfolds, that the learned trial Court was enjoined, to not, in a perfunctory manner, reject the afore application , rather was required to make, an affirmative order thereon, and, also was required to permit the aggrieved defendants, to, adduce evidence thereon. The afore endeavours would also ensure eruption, of evidence, qua, the validity, of, reflections, vis-a-vis, the suit khsra numbers, at the time contemporaneous, to the, allotment thereof, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, and, thereupon, would facilitate, rendering, of, apt and befitting findings upon issue No.4, (d) and, also upon an affirmative order being pronounced, upon, the afore application, by the learned trial Court, the, plaintiff may be facilitated, to, move an application cast under the provisions, of, under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC, for, enabling him, to, add in the array of defendants, the, State of Himachal Pradesh. However, the mechanical, dismissal of the afore application, by the learned trial Court, has curtailed and scuttled, the, eruption of the afore dire legal necessity, and, has caused gross injustice, to the aggrieved defendants. Consequently, reiteratedly, the rendition, of, apt findings upon the afore issue is of utmost importance, in making a further determination, whether the plaintiff is entitled, to rendition of a decree for permanent injunction, and, also for a decree for demolition of structure, as, constructed, upon, the suit khasra number. 10. The effect of the afore discussion, is that the concurrent judgments, and, decrees rendered by both the learned Courts below are quashed and set aside. In sequel, substantial question of law No.1 is answered in favour of the appellants, and, against the defendants. Consequently, the matter is remanded to the learned trial Court, with, a direction to permit the aggrieved defendant(s) to adduce evidence in consonance with the afore application, and, thereafter, if the plaintiff, moves an application for adding the State of Himachal Pradesh, as party, in the array of defendants, to also decide the same in accordance with law. The learned trial Court is further directed to complete the aforesaid exercise, within, six months from today, and, to, also render a fresh decision upon the lis. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court, on, 29th March, 2019. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.