Parties cannot be permitted to fill up lacunae by appointment of local commissioner or leading additional evidence, and evidence relating to subsequent happenings or events cannot be adduced to fill in lacunae or patch up weak points in the case.

Rajiv Sharma, J.

This Regular Second Appeal has been instituted against judgment and decree dated 23.6.2011 rendered by learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, District Mandi, HP in Civil Appeal No. 56 of 2010.

2. "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff' for convenience sake) has filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and in the alternative, for mandatory injunction against the respondent-defendant (hereinafter referred to as 'defendant' for convenience sake), alleging therein that the land comprised in Khewat Khatauni No. 99 min/116, Khasra No. 558, measuring 0-22-23 hectares situate at village Sukhar/507 III Hatli, Sub-Tehsil Baldwara, District Mandi, HP is residential house of both the parties and exist over the suit land. The defendant has started excavating the land which is situated on the backside of the house with the intention to raise pillars. Suit was contested by the defendant. According to the defendant, he was owner-in-possession of the suit land. He prepared a plot over the land. Replication was filed. Issues were framed on 25.11.2002 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division). He dismissed the suit on 20.7.2010. Plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, which was dismissed on 23.6.2011. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal.

3. The appeal was admitted on 21.11.2011, on the following substantial question of law:

"1. Whether both the Ld. Courts below erred in appreciating the law applicable, pleadings of the parties, evidence adduced by them in its right perspective, thus vitiating the impugned judgments & decrees?

2. Whether both the Ld. Courts below have not erred and acted illegally by not taking into consideration the spot map Ex. PW5/A prepared by the revenue agency in discharge of its official duties as per the order of the ld. Trial court dated 10.6.2003 for rendering just and fair decision on the case?

3. Whether the Ld. Courts below have not mis-appreciated the Ex. W-5/A, and Exhibit P2 and was not it incumbent upon the lower appellate court to base its judgment upon the above documents corroborated by oral evidence in the absence of other contrary documentary evidence?

4. Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate on the basis of substantial questions of law framed, has vehemently argued that both the Courts below have not correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence. He also contended that the Courts below have not correctly appreciated the site map, Ext PW-5/A, which was duly corroborated by oral evidence.

5. Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate has supported the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully.

7. Since all the substantial questions of law are interconnected, the same were taken up together for discussion.

8. Plaintiff Roshan Lal has appeared as PW-1. According to him, suit land was Abadi Deh. He along with , other co-villagers and defendant was owner-in-possession of the same. On the backside of his house, there was a vacant land. Defendant started digging work behind his house. Land was sloppy. He was apprehending damage. He tried to stop the defendant. He has proved Ext. P1 Jamabandi. He also proved map prepared by J.E. Devender Kumar, mark X. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the land in front of his house was in possession of the defendant. He admitted that land which is in his possession remains in his possession and he has constructed his house and courtyard and land which was in possession of the defendant remained in his possession and he has constructed his house and courtyard.

9. PW-2 Satya Pal Sharma has deposed that disputed land was Abadi Deh. Courtyard on the backside of the land was in possession of the plaintiff. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the land was on the backside of the house