JUDGMENT : SANDEEP SHARMA, J. 1. By way of instant Regular Second Appeal, filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenge has been laid to judgment and decree dated 05.11.2007, passed by learned District Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 97 of 2006, affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2006, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 170 of 1999, whereby suit for recovery of Rs. 1,65,440/- along with cost and interest, having been filed by the appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as ‘plaintiff’) came to be dismissed. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that the plaintiff/Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation Ltd., a corporate body having its head office at Kasumpti, Shimla, filed suit for recovery against defendant Karam Chand in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. claiming therein that it entered into agreement with the defendant on 25.03.1996 for the labour supply for the purpose of resin extraction. As per agreement, defendant was required to collect total quantity of 137.64 Qtls of resin, whereas, he was only able to extract 72.37 Qtls of resin and as such, there was short fall of 65.27 Qtls. Plaintiff claimed that it is entitled for recovery of Rs. 2700/- per Qtl. on account of less extraction. Besides above, plaintiff also claimed that defendant damaged resin blazes and as such, liable to pay penalty of Rs. 29,330/-. As per plaintiff defendant is only entitled to extraction charges of Rs. 27,862/- and for refund of Rs. 15,500/- deposited by him as security and after the deduction of aforesaid amount, plaintiff is entitled to sum of Rs. 1,65,440/-. Since, despite repeated requests, defendant failed to pay the aforesaid sum, plaintiff filed the suit. 3. Aforesaid claim of the plaintiff came to be refuted on behalf of the defendant, who in his written statement though admitted factum with regard to execution of agreement with the plaintiff for the supply of labour on 25.03.1996, but claimed that out of 3,201 blazes, 1400 blazes were damaged and as such, no resin was extracted from them. Defendant also claimed that department was duly intimated about the damage caused to the blazes and officials though visited the spot, but had suppressed such fact from the Court. Defendant also claimed that department was duly intimated about the damage caused to the blazes and officials though visited the spot, but had suppressed such fact from the Court. Defendant claimed that he is entitled to recovery of Rs. 45,000/- from the plaintiff. Besides above, defendant also claimed that required quantity of resin has been extracted and as such, plaintiff is not entitled to any damage. 4. Learned trial court on the basis of the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties framed following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 165440/- alongwith costs of suit and interest @ 18% p.a. being price and damage for the non-supply of pure resin as per agreement deed dated 25.03.1996, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by its own act and conduct? OPD 4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD. 5. Whether the defendant himself is entitled to Rs. 45,000/- from the plaintiff on account of resin deposited with the forest department? OPD 6. Whether the defendant is entitled to special costs under Section 35-A of CC? OPD 7. Relief.” 5. With a view to substantiate its claim, as detailed hereinabove, plaintiff examined as many as seven witnesses, whereas, defendant with a view to refute the claim of the plaintiff examined two witness. 6. Subsequently, on the basis of pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, learned trial court vide judgment dated 29.06.2006, dismissed the suit having been filed by the plaintiff. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by learned trial court, plaintiff preferred an appeal in the Court of learned District Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 05.11.2007. In the aforesaid background, plaintiff has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to allow its civil suit after setting aside the judgments and decrees impugned in the instant appeal passed by learned Courts below. 7. Appeal having been filed by the plaintiff came to be admitted on 27.11.2008, on following substantial questions of law: 1. In the aforesaid background, plaintiff has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to allow its civil suit after setting aside the judgments and decrees impugned in the instant appeal passed by learned Courts below. 7. Appeal having been filed by the plaintiff came to be admitted on 27.11.2008, on following substantial questions of law: 1. If the defendant makes evasive reply to specific fact alleged by the appellant/plaintiff whether such fact is deemed to be admitted under Order 8 Rule 5 of CPC, 1908? 2. If there is no specific denial by the defendant whether appellant/plaintiff still needs to prove such facts by leading other evidence? 8. While making this Court to peruse the material available on record vis-a-vis impugned judgments laid challenge in the instant proceedings, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel representing the plaintiff vehemently argued that both the courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, as a consequence of which, findings to the detriment of plaintiff has come on record. Mr. Verma, further argued that defendant took two mutual destructive pleas in reply by stating that 1400 blazes were damaged and as such no extraction could be done from the same, but on the same time claimed that required quantity of resin was extracted in terms of agreement dated 25.03.1996 and as such, claim of the plaintiff based upon concrete evidence ought to have been accepted by courts below. Lastly, Mr. Verma, argued that it stands duly proved on record that repeatedly notices were issued to defendant qua the extraction of less quantity of resin, but at no point of time, plausible explanation, if any, ever came to be rendered on his behalf qua the short fall and as such, court below ought not have given undue weightage to the claim of the defendant that on account of damage of 1400 blazes, no resin could be extracted. 9. Mr. R.K. Gautam, learned Senior Counsel representing the defendant while supporting the impugned judgments and decrees passed by learned courts below, strenuously argued that there is no specific denial, if any, qua the damage to 1400 blazes as well as non-extraction of resin from such blazes. He argued that once fact with regard to damage to 1400 blazes stands duly admitted, there was otherwise no occasion for defendant to extract agreed quantity of resin in terms of agreement dated 25.03.1996. He argued that once fact with regard to damage to 1400 blazes stands duly admitted, there was otherwise no occasion for defendant to extract agreed quantity of resin in terms of agreement dated 25.03.1996. While disputing the fact with regard to issuance of notices regarding less extraction of resin, Mr. Gautam, learned Senior Counsel, argued that at no point of time receipts, if any, with regard to resin extracted by defendant in terms of agreement dated 25.03.1996 ever came to be led on record and as such, courts below rightly ignored the claim of the petitioner with regard to issuance of notices. 10. Since both the substantial questions of law are interlinked and can be answered by going deep into the pleadings as well as evidence led on record, both are being taken up for adjudication together. 11. While making this Court to peruse the contents of plaint visa- vis written statement filed by defendant, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel representing the plaintiff vehemently argued that there is no specific reply/denial, if any, to the averments contained in the plaint and as such, Courts below on the basis of admission ought to have decreed the suit of the plaintiff. However, having carefully perused the contents of written statement vis-a-vis contents of plaint, this Court finds no force in the afore submissions of learned counsel representing the plaintiff. 12. There is no dispute that agreement dated 25.03.1996 was executed for the purpose of resin extraction, whereby 3,201 blazes were allotted to the defendant for extraction and total quantity of 137.64 Qtls of resins was to be extracted, but defendant has specifically stated in his written statement that 1400 blazes were damaged and in that regard information was sent to the department. Department after having received information visited the spot, but such fact never came to be pleaded in suit for recovery. Though, there appears to be some force in the submissions of Mr. Department after having received information visited the spot, but such fact never came to be pleaded in suit for recovery. Though, there appears to be some force in the submissions of Mr. Rajesh Verma, learned counsel representing the plaintiff that defendant while refuting the claim of the plaintiff, took two mutual destructive pleas, whereby on the one hand claimed that he has extracted the exact quantity of resin in terms of agreement and on the other hand claimed that 1400 blazes were damaged, however, no benefit, if any, qua the aforesaid omission on the part of defendant can be claimed by plaintiff for the reasons that neither it has been able to prove short fall, if any of resin nor it has been able to refute the claim of the defendant that 1400 blazes out of total 3,201 blazes were damaged. Though, evidence led on record by plaintiff/Corporation reveals that repeatedly notices came to be issued to the defendant for less extraction of resin, but neither plaintiff/corporation placed on record documents, if any, indicating therein actual quantity of resin received from the defendant nor progress report, if any, prepared by forest officials on the site during extraction. 13. DW-1 Shri Bipan Chander, Fieldman, HPSFC, while proving letter dated 17.06.1996 Ext. DW-1/A, i.e. letter sent by Assistant Manager, Forest Working Unit, Barsar, District Hamirpur to the Forest Range Officer admitted that about 1400 blazes in Forest Jassal comprised of Lot No. 21/96 had dried up rendering the same unfit for extraction of resin. In the aforesaid communication, request was made for joint spot inspection. PW-4 Sh. Bhagirath being author of the aforesaid communication has duly admitted the communication, meaning thereby factum with regard to damage caused to 1400 blazes was very much in the knowledge of Forest Corporation. 14. Defendant also examined DW-2, Rajinder Kumar, Peon, Forest Range Office, Hamirpur to show that application Mark-A was submitted by him to the Divisional Manager, HPFC, Forest Working Division, Unit Nehrian, Nadaun Range, Hamirpur, H.P. vide Ext. DW-2/A. Though application Mark-A remained unproved, but since, receipt thereof Ext. DW-2/A stands duly proved, courts below rightly read the contents of the application, wherein, prayer made on behalf of the defendant for joint inspection came to be made. 15. Leaving everything aside, there is no specific denial, if any, to the plea taken by the defendant with regard to damage of 1400 blazes. DW-2/A stands duly proved, courts below rightly read the contents of the application, wherein, prayer made on behalf of the defendant for joint inspection came to be made. 15. Leaving everything aside, there is no specific denial, if any, to the plea taken by the defendant with regard to damage of 1400 blazes. Defendant in his written statement categorically claimed that 1400 blazes were damaged and if it is so, no resin could be extracted from the same, as has been stated by Assistant Manager Forest Working Unit, Barsar, District Hamirpur in letter dated 17.06.1996, whereby, this officer while intimating the fact with regard to damage to the Forest Range Officer, Nadaun has specifically intimated that 1400 blazes in Forest Jassal comprised of Lot No. 21/96 have dried up and same are unfit for extraction of resin. Once, 1400 blazes out of 3,201 were unfit for extraction of resin, total quantity of 137.64 Qtl of resin in terms of agreement dated 25.03.1996, could not be extracted. DW-2 Rajinder Kumar also admitted that defendant had moved an application to the Corporation intimating therein that 1400 blazes have dried up. Though, Mr. Rajesh Verma, learned counsel representing the plaintiff argued that since defendant failed to enter into witness box, adverse inference is required to be drawn against him, but since, there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record by the defendant with regard to damage of 1400 blazes, learned courts below rightly arrived at a conclusion that short fall of 65.27 Qtls was owing to damage of 1400 blazes out of allotted 3201 blazes and as such, defendant cannot be held liable for the same. 16. Having perused the material available on record, this Court is fully satisfied and convinced that both the Courts below have very meticulously dealt with each and every aspect of the matter and there is no scope of interference, whatsoever, in the present matter. No question of law much less substantial arises in the instant case for adjudication. Besides above, this Court sees no reason to interfere in the concurrent finding of facts and law recorded by the court below, especially when learned counsel representing the appellant has been not able to point out any perversity in the findings recorded by the Court below. 17. Hon’ble Apex Court in Laxmidevamma and Others vs. Ranganath and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 264 , it has been held as under: “16. 17. Hon’ble Apex Court in Laxmidevamma and Others vs. Ranganath and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 264 , it has been held as under: “16. Based on oral and documentary evidence, both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiffs have established their right in A schedule property. In the light of the concurrent findings of fact, no substantial questions of law arose in the High Court and there was no substantial ground for re-appreciation of evidence. While so, the High Court proceeded to observe that the first plaintiff has earmarked the A schedule property for road and that she could not have full-fledged right and on that premise proceeded to hold that declaration to the plaintiffs’ right cannot be granted. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by the High Court unless the findings so recorded are shown to be perverse. In our considered view, the High Court did not keep in view that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, are based on oral and documentary evidence and the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained.” 18. Aforesaid exposition of law clearly suggests that High Court, while excising power under Section 100 CPC, cannot upset concurrent findings of fact unless the same are shown to be perverse. In the case at hand, this Court while examining the correctness and genuineness of submissions having been made by the parties, has carefully perused evidence led on record by the respective parties, perusal whereof certainly suggests that the Courts below have appreciated the evidence in its right perspective and there is no perversity, as such, in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. Moreover, learned counsel representing the appellant was unable to point out perversity, if any, in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below and as such, same do not call for any interference. 19. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court sees no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by courts below, which otherwise appear to be based upon proper appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties. Both the substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 20. The present appeal fails and same is accordingly dismissed. Interim directions, if any, are vacated. Both the substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 20. The present appeal fails and same is accordingly dismissed. Interim directions, if any, are vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of.