JUDGMENT :

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

The plaintiff instituted civil suit No. 232 of 1999, before the learned trial Judge. In the suit (supra), he claimed the making of the hereinafter extracted decrees:

(A) Suit for possession by demolition of construction marked by letters A B C D, as shown in red colour in the site plan of the plaintiff being a part of the land measuring 0-03-46. Hence, comprised in Khewat No. 204 min, khatauni No. 511, min and khasra Nos 2554, as entered in the Jamabandi for the year 1996-97, situated in village Kathiari, Tehsil Amb, District Una (H.P.)

(B) Suit for issuance of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from raising any further construction taking further forcible possession and changing the nature of the land measuring 0-08-59 Hects, comprised in Khewat No. 204 min, khatauni No. 511 min and khasra No. 2531 and 2554, as entered in the Jamabandi for the year 1996-97, situate in village Kathiari, Tehsil Amb, District Una, under Sections 5 and 38 of the Specific Relief Act.”

2. The plaintiff also instituted another civil suit bearing No. 128 of 1999, before the learned trial judge, and in the afore suit, the plaintiff claimed the makings of the hereinafter extracted decree(s), vis-à-vis, the suit khasra No. 1556 and 1557, and, against the defendants.

3. Both the afore civil suits, through a common verdict, recorded thereons, on 29.8.2006, became decided in the hereinafter extracted manner:

“The Court hereby direct that parties shall abide by the compromise and the result of demarcation report Ext. CW1/A which along with map relied and statements Ext. CW1/B and C are made part of decree. In view of facts and circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs. A decree sheet be prepared. Attested copy of this judgment and that of decree sheet be placed on the record of Civil Suit No. 232/1999 titled as Bhagwan Dass v. Behari Lal. Both the suits be consigned to record room.”

4. The aggrieved plaintiff carried there against Civil Appeal No. 27/2006, before the learned First Appellate Court. The learned first Appellate Court, upon Civil Appeal No. 27 of 2006, made thereon a decision of dismissal. Obviously, hence, the judgments and decrees, as became rendered by the learned trial Judge, became affirmed, and, maintained.

5. The aggrieved plaintiff, is led, to constitute there against, the instant appeal, before this Court. When the instant appeal, came up before this Court, on 26.3.2010, it came to be admitted, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:

“1. Whether the statements of the parties with respect to the demarcation in a suit for injunction would automatically make the later suit for possession based on title redundant and such findings are unsustainable?

2. Whether without clubbing the two suits involving different subject matter can be legally disposed of by a common judgment, more particularly when the issues in both the suits are distinct and specific and the learned Courts below have committed an error of law in holding that both the suits have become redundant?

3. Whether the statement of the parties with regard to getting the demar5cation of their land in an injunction suit would take away the right of another party to file suit for possession of his land against others?

4. Whether admission made by the Local Commissioner while appearing as a witness and contradicting his own report is sufficient evidence to discard the report of the Local Commissioner and the learned Courts below have committed an error in relying upon such report which is Ext. CW1/A?

6. Though, the concurrent verdicts, as made respectively by the learned trial Judge concerned, and later by the learned first appellate Court, draw sustenance, from a compromise, which is reflected in the order, made by the learned trial Judge, on 29.8.2006, order whereof is extracted hereinafter:

“Both the learned counsel have made statement that matter has been compromised between the parties and they will get suit land and adj