JUDGMENT : The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants herein (for short the plaintiff) instituted a Civil Suit bearing No. 24/1 of 2000 before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div) Arki, District Solan, H.P. In the afore suit the plaintiff claims the making of a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, and, for possession, vis-à-vis, land comprised in khata-khatauni No. 12/12, Khasra No. 64, measuring 1-13 bighas, situated in Village Chhamrol, Pargana Rohanj, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P (for short ‘the suit land”), and against the defendants/respondents (for short “the defendants”). 2. The learned Civil Judge concerned on 23.7.2005, upon, Civil Suit No. 24/1 of 2000, made a verdict of dismissal. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the verdict of dismissal, hence recorded by the learned trial Court, preferred Case No. 14-A/FTC/13 of 05/06, before the learned Addl. District Judge (Presiding Officer Fast Track Court) Solan, District Solan, H.P. Upon the afore Civil Appeal, the learned first Appellate Court, made a verdict rather affirming the verdict (supra) as made by the learned trial Court. Consequently, the plaintiff being aggrieved therefrom, is, led to institute there-against the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court. 3. When the instant appeal came up for admission before this Court, this Court had admitted the appeal on 4.3.2008, on the herein- after extracted substantial questions of law No.1 to 3:- “1. Whether the Lower Appellate Court has committed grave procedural illegality and irregularity in confining its findings only to the question of maintainability of the suit as formulated under Point No.1 without deciding the merits of the case when points No.2 and 3 were specifically formulated? 2. Whether both the Courts below have fell in grave procedural error and committed illegality and irregularity in holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant was barred by the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2, Order 9 Rule 9 and Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, are not the findings returned by both the Courts below erroneous, illegal and perverse when cause of action and the relief claimed in both the suits were not same? 3. Whether the trial Court has committed grave error of law and jurisdiction in not appointing the Local Commissioner when the dispute between the parties was boundary dispute especially when the trial court rejected the demarcation reports proved on record by the plaintiff-appellant?” 4. 3. Whether the trial Court has committed grave error of law and jurisdiction in not appointing the Local Commissioner when the dispute between the parties was boundary dispute especially when the trial court rejected the demarcation reports proved on record by the plaintiff-appellant?” 4. The relief(s) as encapsulated in the relief cause of the plaint become extracted hereinafter:- “It is therefore, prayed that the defendant may kindly be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land and from diverting the filthy water of their houses into the suit land by granting decree for permanent prohibitory injunction. (ii) The defendant No.1 may also kindly be directed to handover back the possession of 4 biswansi of land shown in the annexed tatima as mark 64/1 by granting decree of possession in favour of the plaintiff. Any other relief which this Court deem fit may kindly be awarded.” 5. The plaintiff in proving the afore aspired relief, and, concomitantly also for the relief supra becoming granted to them, hence made reliance(s) respectively upon Ex. PW-4/A prepared on 19.7.1996, and, upon Ex. DW-1/C, prepared on 29.1.1998. Both the afore alluded exhibits are the demarcation reports prepared by the demarcating Officer, and, both reveal therein that a part of the suit land becoming encroached, upon by the defendants. The making of the afore alluded exhibits was respectively visible prior to the institution of instant suit. 6. The plaintiff had earlier to the institution of Civil suit No. 24-1 of 2000, rather instituted a suit carried in Ex. DW-1/E, before the learned Civil Judge (1st Class) Arki. The afore Civil Suit suffered, on 12.1.2000, the ill fate of its dismissal in default. A reading of Ex. DW-1/E, discloses that the suit khasra numbers as carried therein are completely analogous to the khasra numbers as carried in the instant plaint, and, further more, the memo of parties carried therein are also completely similar to the memo of parties, as, carried in the instant suit. A reading of Ex. DW-1/E, discloses that the suit khasra numbers as carried therein are completely analogous to the khasra numbers as carried in the instant plaint, and, further more, the memo of parties carried therein are also completely similar to the memo of parties, as, carried in the instant suit. The effect, of the afore dismissal in default of the earlier suit inter-se parties hence holding the completest analogity vis-à-vis the parties at hand, and, also the effect of all causes of action, and, suit khasra numbers carried therein, also being completely identical to the suit khasra numbers in the extant suit, and, given that despite dismissal of the earlier suit in default, and, yet the order dismissing the suit in default, as made on 12.1.2000, becoming not attempted to be set aside, through an application cast by the aggrieved plaintiff, under, the provisions of Order 9 Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, is that it does constrain, this Court to conclude, that the plaintiff’s extant suit, rather becoming hit by the vice of statutory estoppels(s). “Order IX rule 9 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE: Decree against plaintiff by default bars fresh suit- (i) Where a suit is wholly on partly dismissed under rule 8, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action. But he may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside, and, if he satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for his nonappearance when the suit was called on for hearing, the court shall made an order setting aside the dismissal upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit. (2) No order shall be made under this rule unless notice of the application has been served on the opposite party.” 7. Further more the afore alluded demarcation reports, carrying the afore echoings therein, were respectively prepared in the year 1996 and in the year 1998, hence their preparations did occur either to the institution of the former suit by the plaintiff before the Civil Judge concerned, or and, during the pendency of the earlier suit. However, despite the existence of the afore made demarcation report(s) at the afore stages, yet the plaintiff did not choose to make any reliance(s) upon them. However, despite the existence of the afore made demarcation report(s) at the afore stages, yet the plaintiff did not choose to make any reliance(s) upon them. Omission (supra) on the part of the plaintiff, to, make reliance(s) upon the demarcation reports (supra) as became respectively prepared earlier to the institution of the former suit or during the pendency of the earlier suit, does constrain this Court, to, attract against the errant plaintiff, the mandate enshrined in Order 2 Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- “ORDER II RULE 2 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE: 2. Suit to include the whole claim- (1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court. (2) Relinquishment of part of claim- Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished. (3) Omission to sue for one of several reliefs- A person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs; but if he omits, except with the leave of the Court, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted. Explanation- For the purpose of this rule an obligation and a collateral security for its performance and successive claims arising under the same obligation shall be deemed respectively to constitute but one cause of action.” 8. Imperatively since the earlier suit of the plaintiff, did contain, causes of action hence similar to the one as become voiced in the instant suit, besides when the memo of parties as carried in the earlier suit is completely analogous, vis-à-vis memo of parties, as carried in the extant suit. Therefore, a dire necessity became cast upon the plaintiff to ensure, that they include in the earlier suit, the factum of demarcations’ reports (supra) hence becoming prepared, and to also take to prove the demarcation reports (supra), rather in the earlier drawn proceedings by them. Therefore, a dire necessity became cast upon the plaintiff to ensure, that they include in the earlier suit, the factum of demarcations’ reports (supra) hence becoming prepared, and to also take to prove the demarcation reports (supra), rather in the earlier drawn proceedings by them. However, they omitted to do so, and, besides when also rather against the dismissal of their earlier suit, in default, they failed to recourse the mandate of Order 9 Rule 9 CPC, for restoring the earlier Civil Suit to its original number. Therefore, the cumulative effects of the afore omissions, is that the afore statutory provision(s) rather creating bar of estoppels, against the plaintiff rather instituting the instant suit, hence visibly becoming aroused. Moreover, when the salutary purpose behind the afore statutory provisions, is to ebb the menace of repetitive institutions of suit, on same and similar causes of action, and, vis-à-vis, similar suit property, and, when there is completest similarity of litigants in both the earlier, and, in the subsequent suit, besides with both detailing similar khasra numbers. Therefore, reiteratedly the estopping mandates (supra) do completely emerge, and sequels a firm inference that the instant suit is hit by the afore erupting statutory estoppels. 9. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the plaintiff, has contended with much vigour before this Court, that for settling the lis inter-se the parties at contest, it became incumbent upon the learned Courts below to yet appoint a Local Commissioner. However, the afore made submission, could become well founded only when the instant suit, is not hit by the afore vices. Since the grant of equitable relief of injunction, and, of possession would be validly founded only upon apposite therewith displays, being made in the apposite rather validly drawn demarcation reports concerned. However, when the afore vices work against the plaintiff, consequently they carry the ensuing effect, that the indispensable norm rather governing the grant of equitable relief of injunction, in as much as equity hence becoming not breached by the plaintiff, rather visibly becoming completely breached by the plaintiff. However, when the afore vices work against the plaintiff, consequently they carry the ensuing effect, that the indispensable norm rather governing the grant of equitable relief of injunction, in as much as equity hence becoming not breached by the plaintiff, rather visibly becoming completely breached by the plaintiff. Consequently, the afore statutory omission(s), as, are made to undone through this Court accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff, and thereupon this Court proceeding to appoint a local Commissioner, for conducting fresh demarcation(s) of the contiguous estates of the contesting litigants, would ensure rather, the ill-sequel of this Court, militating against the afore statutory estoppels, evidently working against the instant suit, as becomes reared by the plaintiff. Therefore, this Court refrains from its breaching the principle of statutory estoppels, as work against the plaintiff’s extant suit. 10. Though the learned counsel for the plaintiff, has yet continued to argue, that the defendants being injuncted from interfering in the suit land. However, without there being any real potentiality of threat, to the suit land, and, as would arise from actual or threatened invasions, on to his property hence being made by the defendants, and, as would become well succored, only upon, in the earlier instituted suit hence the plaintiff making valid dependences upon the demarcation reports (supra), whereas, rather his evident omission (supra) rendering his nowat reliance(s), upon them, to be grossly inapt. Therefore, this Court finds that there is only a surmisal or imaginative threat etched in the mind of the plaintiff, that there is a potentiality of invasion on to the suit land by the defendants. The afore imaginative endangerment hence etched in the mind of the plaintiff, would cause the ill effect of the plaintiff’s prayer for injunction against the defendants, being vindicated, even when there is no actual or proven threatened invasion upon the suit land hence by the defendants. Moreover, this Court cannot render any injunction against the defendants, without the afore parameters rather regulating its rendition hence being proved. Moreso, the cause of action for its making is averred to spur rather in the year 2006, in quick spontaneity whereof, the earlier suit became dismissed for default, hence with all consequential legal effect(s) (supra). Moreover, this Court cannot render any injunction against the defendants, without the afore parameters rather regulating its rendition hence being proved. Moreso, the cause of action for its making is averred to spur rather in the year 2006, in quick spontaneity whereof, the earlier suit became dismissed for default, hence with all consequential legal effect(s) (supra). On afore anchor this Court also refrains to make the apposite injunction against the plaintiff, as thereupon the effect supra of estoppel working against the extant suit would become impermissibly undone. Only upon proven occurrences of any real and proven potential endangerments of invasions on the suit land by the defendants, would make a valid cause of action hence generate vis-à-vis the plaintiff and not earlier nor any omnibus injunction rather without the afore norms being proved, can become validly rendered. 11. In view of the above, the instant Regular Second Appeal is dismissed, and, the substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. The impugned judgments are maintained and affirmed. Records be sent back.