JUDGMENT : 1. The civil suit filed by the respondent for vacant possession of suit land on the strength of his title and on the basis of a demarcation report showing encroachment on the suit land by the appellant/defendant has been decreed by both the learned Courts below. This is defendant’s second appeal. 2. Facts 2(i) Plaintiff’s case was that he was owner of land comprised in Khata No. 167, Khatauni No. 230 and Khasra No. 899/160, measuring 2 kanals 1 marla, situated in Up Mohal Anu, Mauza Matti Tihra, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, H.P. He applied for demarcation of the suit land. Demarcation was conducted and its report was affirmed by Assistant Collector First grade Hamirpur on 11.04.2012 in Case No. 65 of 2012 titled Gopala Vs. Om Parkash and others. In this demarcation report, the defendant was found to have encroached over 19.38 Sq. meters of plaintiff’s land comprised in Khasra No. 899/160. The encroached area was reflected as Khasra No. 899/160/1. Plaintiff pleaded that despite requests, the defendant did not hand over the vacant possession of 19.38 Sq. meters of land to him, hence he filed the civil suit for possession of the aforesaid land measuring 19.38 Sq. meters. 2(ii) In his written statement, the defendant took preliminary objections regarding locus standi, cause of action and maintainability of suit. The defendant also pleaded that suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by principle of estoppel as previously also, on the same issue, the plaintiff had filed a civil suit that was dismissed by the learned trial Court. An objection of suit being barred by limitation was also raised. The defendant also submitted that his house was constructed on the suit land in the year 1985 after getting the site plan approved from the competent authority. He also submitted that the house was constructed over the suit land with the consent of its previous owner in the year 1985, whereas the plaintiff had purchased the land in question in the year 1995. Plaintiff having stepped into the shoes of previous owner could not have instituted the civil suit for possession. Regarding the demarcation report, the defence was that the said demarcation was one sided, conducted in violation of principles of natural justice behind the back of the defendant and was also not in consonance with the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner. Plaintiff having stepped into the shoes of previous owner could not have instituted the civil suit for possession. Regarding the demarcation report, the defence was that the said demarcation was one sided, conducted in violation of principles of natural justice behind the back of the defendant and was also not in consonance with the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner. 2(iii) The parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective pleadings. On considering the same, learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff on 16.03.2021. The plaintiff was held entitled for vacant possession of the suit land measuring 19.38 Sq. meters comprised in Khasra No. 899/160/1, situated in Up Mohal Anu, Mauza Matti Tihra, Tehsil and District Hamirpur after demolition of the structure raised by the defendant. The judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was upheld by the learned first appellate Court on 31.12.2021. 2(iv) Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgments and decrees passed against him, the defendant preferred the instant Regular Second Appeal on 28.03.2022. After filing of the appeal, the defendant on 28.07.2022 moved an application being CMP No. 13262 of 2022 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code for permission to lead additional evidence for exhibiting the pleadings and evidence of an earlier litigation between the parties i.e. of Civil Suit No. 79 of 1995 by summoning the original records thereof and examining the custodians of record after summoning them. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard at the admission stage. Contentions 3(i) Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant submitted that the judgments and decrees passed by learned Courts below have not correctly appreciated either the pleadings or the evidence on record. That the plaintiff had earlier filed a civil suit on the same cause of action against the same defendant in the year 1995. That Civil Suit No. 79 of 1995 was dismissed on 27.10.2004. The plaintiff was thus estopped from filing the present civil suit on the same cause of action. It was also submitted that in the said civil suit, it stood established on record that the defendant had constructed his house over Khasra No. 899/160. No new construction was raised by the defendant. The plaintiff was thus estopped from filing the present civil suit on the same cause of action. It was also submitted that in the said civil suit, it stood established on record that the defendant had constructed his house over Khasra No. 899/160. No new construction was raised by the defendant. In view of dismissal of the earlier suit and in light of the findings recorded in the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2004 passed in the earlier civil suit, the plaintiff’s present suit for possession was not maintainable. Referring to the statements of witnesses recorded in the instant case, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the demarcation relied by the plaintiff to seek possession of the suit land, was conducted illegally. No notice for carrying out the demarcation was ever issued to the defendant. He was not aware of any demarcation having been conducted. This demarcation report could not have been made the basis for decreeing the suit. It was also urged that demarcation, so conducted, was not in consonance with the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner. 3(ii) Defending the impugned judgments and decrees, learned Senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent submitted that earlier Civil Suit No. 79 of 1995 filed by the plaintiff was in respect of a different cause of action, wherein prayer was made for fixation of boundary. A consequential relief of prohibitory permanent injunction was prayed and in the alternative, prayer for possession was made. The learned trial Court in its judgment and decree passed in that suit on 27.10.2004 had held that in view of Section 171 of H.P. Land Revenue Act, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to fix the boundary by demarcation. It was under these circumstances that suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. Learned Senior counsel also submitted that both the learned Courts below correctly appreciated the facts, the pleadings, the evidence and the applicable legal position while decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff. In view of concurrent appreciation of facts, no question of law arises for determination in this second appeal. 4. After hearing learned counsel on both sides, I am of the considered view that for the following reasons, this appeal merits rejection :- 4(i) Ownership over the suit land It is not in dispute that plaintiff is recorded as owner-in-possession of Khasra No. 899/160. Jamabandi Ex. P-2 for the year 2007-2008 proves this fact. 4. After hearing learned counsel on both sides, I am of the considered view that for the following reasons, this appeal merits rejection :- 4(i) Ownership over the suit land It is not in dispute that plaintiff is recorded as owner-in-possession of Khasra No. 899/160. Jamabandi Ex. P-2 for the year 2007-2008 proves this fact. The plaintiff has filed suit for possession on the strength of his title over the suit land. Ownership of plaintiff over this khasra number has not been disputed by the defendant. 4(ii) Encroachment in the suit land Plaintiff claims that 19.38 Sq. meters of his owned land comprised in Khasra No. 899/160 has been encroached by the defendant. To prove the encroachment by the defendant, plaintiff has relied upon demarcation report Ex. PW-3/A. This demarcation report was produced by record keeper (PW-2) from the office of Deputy Commissioner Hamirpur. The demarcation was conducted by Balbir Singh, Field Kanungo (PW-3). The demarcation report states that plaintiff’s land measuring 19.38 Sq. meters depicted by Khasra No. 899/160/1 was found in possession of the defendant. 4(ii) (a) To test the argument raised on behalf of the defendant about the demarcation having been conducted in violation of principles of natural justice, reference is necessary to the statements of some of the relevant witnesses. The author of the demarcation report PW-3 in his deposition has referred to complete demarcation case file and stated that notice for carrying out the demarcation was sent to the defendant. This notice was duly received and signed by defendant’s wife Smt. Vidya Devi. He also stated that the intimation notice sent to the defendant for carrying out demarcation was available in the demarcation file. In his deposition, it is also mentioned that Smt. Vidya Devi was present on spot during demarcation, but had refused to sign the demarcation report. These facts have also been corroborated by Harphool Singh, who appeared as PW-1. His statement is to the effect that he was present at the time of demarcation and had signed the report. That defendant’s wife Smt. Vidya Devi was also present there, but refused to sign the statement. He also stated that defendant himself was also present in his house but did not chose to remain present on the spot. On the face of these facts viz. That defendant’s wife Smt. Vidya Devi was also present there, but refused to sign the statement. He also stated that defendant himself was also present in his house but did not chose to remain present on the spot. On the face of these facts viz. intimation of conducting demarcation having been served upon the defendant, the intimation notice having been signed by defendant’s wife, she remaining present on the spot during demarcation, the statements of witnesses present during demarcation having been recorded, witnesses having sworn by the demarcation having been conducted in their presence and the maker of the demarcation report himself appearing in the witness box to give details of conducting the demarcation, both the learned Courts below drew correct inference that the demarcation was carried out in accordance with the principles of natural justice. 4(ii)(b) The argument that the demarcation has not been carried out in consonance with law or in consonance with the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner as three pucca points were not fixed, is misplaced in the facts of the case. The demarcation report Ex. PW-3/A was confirmed by Assistant Collector First grade Hamirpur on 11.04.2012. It has already been held that the demarcation was not conducted in violation of principles of natural justice. It also stands established that the defendant was put to notice before the conduct of demarcation. His wife attended the demarcation proceedings but refused to sign the report. The defendant himself present in the house at the time of carrying out of demarcation chose not to step out. The witnesses present there signed the demarcation report. Version of PW-3-the maker of demarcation report has been corroborated by one of its witnesses i.e. PW-1. PW-3 has stated that he had taken three ‘pucca’ points which have also been referred in the demarcation report. The report also shows that during demarcation perpendiculars were drawn wherever required. Therefore, both the learned Courts below justly held that there is no irregularity or illegality in the conduct of demarcation (Ex. PW-3/A). 4(ii)(c) It is also significant to notice that the demarcation was not conducted pursuance to any order passed by the Civil Court. The plaintiff had taken demarcation at his own level from the competent revenue authority under the provisions of H.P. Land Revenue Act. It is not the case of defendant that the demarcation report was assailed by him before the appropriate forum. The plaintiff had taken demarcation at his own level from the competent revenue authority under the provisions of H.P. Land Revenue Act. It is not the case of defendant that the demarcation report was assailed by him before the appropriate forum. The demarcation report thus attained finality. Even in the earlier civil suit between the parties, encroachment by the defendant over plaintiff’s land had been proved. 4(iii) Maintainability of present suit In the demarcation report, it was proved that the defendant had encroached 19.38 Sq. meters of plaintiff’s land in Khasra No. 849/160. The encroached area was depicted by Khasra No. 899/160/1. The argument of the defendant that the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking decree of possession on the strength of his title and demarcation report was not maintainable on the ground that earlier civil suit instituted by him for the same relief was dismissed, also lacks merit. The judgment and decree in the earlier civil suit have been placed on record as Ex. D-1 and D-2. These documents indicate that Civil Suit No. 79 of 1995 was instituted by the plaintiff on 28.03.1995 and was dismissed on 27.10.2004. The said suit was for fixation of boundary by way of demarcation with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction and in the alternative for possession. The defendant put forth a specific objection in his written statement to his earlier civil suit that the relief prayed by the plaintiff could not be granted in view of bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court created under Section 171 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. A specific issue was framed concerning jurisdiction of Civil Court. The Court in its judgment and decree dated 27.10.2004 held that it was within the exclusive domain of competent revenue officer to demarcate the land and that the jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred under Section 171 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. On the basis of this conclusion, learned Court declined to order fixing of boundary by demarcation of the suit land. Reading of the judgment dated 27.10.2004 also makes it evident that a Local Commissioner appointed by the Court had reported that while constructing his house, the defendant had encroached to the extent of 14.16 Sq. meters of plaintiff’s land in Khasra No. 899/160. Reading of the judgment dated 27.10.2004 also makes it evident that a Local Commissioner appointed by the Court had reported that while constructing his house, the defendant had encroached to the extent of 14.16 Sq. meters of plaintiff’s land in Khasra No. 899/160. The Court observed that the plaintiff’s case was that the defendant had encroached the suit land by constructing a septic tank during pendency of the suit, whereas encroachment was shown in the shape of house by the Local Commissioner in his report. Burdon was on the plaintiff to prove that encroachment was made during pendency of suit. The plaintiff failed to establish that construction was raised by the defendant during the pendency of the suit or that defendant had interfered in plaintiff’s possession over the suit land. The Court observed that Local Commissioner’s report did not corroborate plaintiff’s pleaded case that septic tank was constructed by defendant during the pendency of suit. Report of the Local Commissioner about defendant’s raising house over suit land was held to be beyond the pleadings. The argument raised by the defendant that plaintiff being aware of raising of construction by the defendant was estopped from filing the suit, was also not accepted by the Court. For the aforesaid reasons, the civil suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 27.10.2004 will not affect the maintainability of the present civil suit. In the instant civil suit, the plaintiff has claimed possession on the strength of his title and on the strength of demarcation report, whereas the earlier civil suit was for fixation of boundary by way of demarcation with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction and in the alternative for possession. Plaintiff in the earlier suit had pleaded that encroachment in his owned land was made by the defendant in the form of septic tank during the pendency of the civil suit. Learned Trial Court in its judgment delivered in the earlier suit held that the Local Commissioner had reported construction of a house by the defendant over plaintiff’s land and not of septic tank and further, said construction was not raised during pendency of suit. The findings in Local Commissioner’s report were held to be beyond plaintiff’s pleading in the earlier suit. The reliefs prayed in both the civil suits are different. The findings in Local Commissioner’s report were held to be beyond plaintiff’s pleading in the earlier suit. The reliefs prayed in both the civil suits are different. The Court had refused demarcation to the plaintiff in the earlier civil suit after concluding that such relief could not be allowed by the civil Court in view of lack of jurisdiction of civil Court under Section 171 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. The present suit for possession on the strength of title is based upon a demarcation report which the plaintiff obtained himself from the revenue authorities in accordance with law. The argument of the defendant that construction of his house on the suit land in the year 1995 having been established in view of findings recorded in the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2004, is not sufficient to dislodge the claim of the plaintiff in the present civil suit. The defendant has not taken any plea of his being in adverse possession or permissive possession of the suit land etc. Neither any pleadings nor any evidence has been advanced by the defendant regarding nature of his possession on the plaintiff’s land in question. Even the previous owner of the suit land with whose consent the defendant alleges to have made construction in the year 1995 has not been called in the witness box. All these facts have been correctly appreciated by both the learned Courts below in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff. 4(iv) Additional Evidence The defendant has moved an application being CMP No. 13262 of 2022 for permission to lead additional evidence in the form of pleadings and evidence of Civil Suit No. 79 of 1995. The application states that these documents are essential for adjudication of the second appeal. That these documents were not in possession of the defendant earlier and the same were obtained from the concerned Court on 21.06.2022. 4(iv)(a) In (2021) 5 SCC 241 , H.S. Goutham Vs. Rama Murthy and another, Hon’ble apex Court held that as per the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C., the appellate Court may permit additional evidence to be produced whether oral or documentary, if the conditions mentioned in Order 41 Rule 27 are satisfied. 4(iv)(a) In (2021) 5 SCC 241 , H.S. Goutham Vs. Rama Murthy and another, Hon’ble apex Court held that as per the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C., the appellate Court may permit additional evidence to be produced whether oral or documentary, if the conditions mentioned in Order 41 Rule 27 are satisfied. The parties to the appeal cannot be permitted to lead additional evidence and/or the appellate court is not justified to direct the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred or any other subordinate court, to take such evidence and to send it when taken to the Appellate Court. In (2006) 9 SCC 772 , State of Gujarat and another Vs. Mahendrakumar Parshottambhai Desai (Dead) by LRs, it was held that appellate Court has the power to allow a document to be produced and a witness to be examined under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the requirement of the said Court must be limited to those cases where it found it necessary to obtain such evidence for enabling it to pronounce judgment. This provision did not entitle the appellate court to let in fresh evidence at the appellate stage where even without such evidence it can pronounce judgment in the case. It does not entitle the appellate court to let in fresh evidence only for purposes of pronouncement of judgment in a particular way. 4(iv)(b) The application seeking to lead additional evidence is nothing, but an attempt to fill in the lacuna in the evidence led by the defendant. The defendant has all along taken the defence that the instant suit was not maintainable on account of filing of earlier Civil Suit No. 79 of 1995. The defendant cannot be heard to say that he was not aware about the pleadings and evidence of Civil Suit No. 79 of 1995. Had he exercised due diligence, the documents now sought to be produced by way of additional evidence in the second appeal could have been easily placed on record in the civil suit at the relevant time. After suffering judgment and decree, not only in the learned trial Court, but also in the appellate Court, it is too late for the defendant to pray for production of additional evidence relating to Civil Suit No. 79 of 1995. After suffering judgment and decree, not only in the learned trial Court, but also in the appellate Court, it is too late for the defendant to pray for production of additional evidence relating to Civil Suit No. 79 of 1995. As it is, the judgment and decree passed in the said civil suit is already on record of the case and has been adverted to by both the learned Courts below. It has been observed in para supra that suit (C.S. No. 79 of 1995) does not affect the maintainability of the present suit. 5. The upshot of above discussion is that the plaintiff has been able to prove that he was owner of the suit land measuring 19.38 Sq. meters comprised in Khasra No. 899/160/1 situated in Up Mohal Anu, Tehsil and District Hamirpur. Plaintiff has also established that the suit land was encroached by the defendant. The suit for possession of this land filed by him on the strength of his title and demarcation report has been justly decreed by both the learned Courts below. No question of law muchless substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. There is no error in the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.