JUDGMENT :

1. The plaintiff/respondent herein instituted Civil Suit No. 51/1 of 2013 before the learned Civil Judge, Court No.1, Solan, District Solan, H.P. Therein the plaintiff claimed the making of a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, and, he also claimed therein, the, making of a decree of monetary damages, vis-à-vis, him. The learned trial Court through a decision recorded thereons, on 17.7.2018, in the operative part of its verdict, granted the hereinafter extracted relief(s):-

“in view of my findings and discussions on the aforesaid issues, in particular my findings on issue No.1 & 2, the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed with costs to the effect that plaintiff is held entitled to the relief of damages to the tune of rs.2,79,910/- (two lakh seventy nine thousand and nine hundred and ten rupees) alongwith interest @ 6% per anum from date of order of this court till realization of entire amount jointly from defendants. Further, defendants is hereby restrained from causing any kind of interference in any manner over land measuring 1-01 bighas comprised in khasra No. 233/153 khata/khatauni No. 6/6 min, situated at Mauja Baggar Tehsil and Distt. Solan, HP, either personally or through family members agents and representatives etc. except in accordance with law. A decree sheet be drawn accordingly. The file, after its due completion, be consigned to the record room.”

2. The aggrieved defendants/appellants herein instituted there-against Civil Appeal No. 30-S/13 of 2018, before the learned Additional District Judge-1, Solan, District Solan, H.P. Upon the afore Civil Appeal, the learned first Appellate Court through its decision made on 23.9.2019, made a verdict of dismissal, and, obviously affirmed and maintained, the, verdict (supra) as became pronounced by the learned trial Court.

3. The aggrieved defendants reared there-against the instant appeal before this Court. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, there are no questions of law, much less any substantial question of law, involved in the instant RSA, therefore, this Court is constrained, to, dismiss the instant appeal at the pre-admission stage.

4. The crux of the entire lis engaging the contesting litigants, is rested upon the validity of Ex. PW-7/B, wherewith becomes appended copy of Musabi Ex. PW-7/C, and wherein, the encroachment(s) as made by the defendants, upon, the suit land, rather become narrated.

5. The learned counsel for the defendants/appellants herein, has contended with much vigor, that the dependence(s) as made on Exhibit (supra), is invalid, as there is no clinching evidence adduced on record, rather suggestive that the demarcating officer concerned, in his proceeding to undertake measurements of the suit land concerned alongwith adjoining thereto lands, his not breaching (a) the relevant mandate, as, comprised in his proceeding to undertake the apposite measurements, only with his prior thereto, taking the consent of the contesting litigants, vis-à-vis, the three fixed points wherefrom the relevant measurements were enjoined to be carried (b) demarcation report being invalid as it has not received any confirmation thereto by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade.

6. The plaintiff in proving Ex. PW-7/B, had caused the stepping into the witness box of PW-7 Sh. Satya Parkash, who authored the Exhibit (supra). Though in his examination-in-chief he has proved Ex. PW-7/B. Moreover, he therein also proved the factum, that he carried demarcation of the suit land in consonance with the mandate carried in the HP Land Records Manual. He also testified that upon receipt of application of 11.2.2013, he demarcated the suit land, and, prepared report Ex. PW-7/B enclosing therewith the copy of Musabi Ex. PW-7/C, copy of Jamabandi Ex. PW-7/D, statement of police official Ex. PW-7/E statement of Mohan Lal Ex. PW-7/F, joint statement of Devender, Vijay, Rameshwar, Ramesh Chand and Raghuvir Ex. PW-7/G, statement of Surender Singh, sunder Singh and Kar