JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

1. By way of instant appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, challenge has been laid to judgment and decree dated 28.5.2007, passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 49 of 2000, affirming the judgment and decree dated 5.2.2000, passed by learned Sub Judge, 1st Class (I), Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., in Civil Suit No. 29 of 1995, titled as Rajinder Paul and others versus Salig Ram, whereby suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction as well as demarcation, having been filed by the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs), came to be dismissed.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that plaintiff filed a suit against original defendant, Salig Ram for permanent prohibitory injunction, averring therein that land compromised in Khata No. 75 min, Khatauni No. 89 min, Khasra Nos. 1106/810, 1114/813, kita-2, measuring 2 kanals 15 marlas, as per jamabandi for the year 1992-93, situate in Tika Ghanal Kalan, Tappa Bajuri, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the suit land), is owned and possessed by the plaintiffs and some portion thereof was encroached upon by the defendant by raising illegal and unauthorized construction of a house in the first week of January, 1989 despite his being stranger to the suit land. Plaintiffs further averred in the plaint that defendant undertook to remove the illegal and unauthorized construction, but fact remains that he again started illegal construction over the suit land in the first week of January, 1993 and since despite repeated requests, he failed to stop the work, plaintiffs had no option, but to file the suit.

3. Original defendant, Salig Ram, who is now being represented by his legal representatives, as detailed in the memo of parties, resisted the aforesaid claim of the plaintiffs on the ground that at no point of time, he raised any construction over the suit land nor he was interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. Defendant submitted that land of the defendant comprised of Khasra Nos. 815 and 920 is adjoining to the suit land and the boundaries between the suit land and his land were affixed a number of times and he has raised construction of his house in the year 1982-83, in the year 1984-85 and also in the year 1986. Besides above, defendant also claimed that the entire construction had been raised by him over his own land and at no point of time plaintiff raised objection, if any, and as such, suit having been filed by the plaintiffs deserves outright rejection.

4. On the basis of the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, learned court below famed framed following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed? OPP.

2. Whether in the alternative, the defendant entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction? OPP.

3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus-standi to file the suit? OPD.

4. Whether the defendant is entitled to special costs under Section 35-A CPC? OPD.

5. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and conduct from filing the suit? OPD.

6. Relief.

5. Learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 5.2.2000.

6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the dismissal of the suit, plaintiffs filed Civil appeal under Section 96 CPC in the court of learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, however fact remains that same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28.5.2007. In the aforesaid background, plaintiffs have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to decree their suit after setting aside the judgments and decrees passed by learned Courts below.

7. On 14.5.2008