JUDGMENT :

Virinder Aggarwal, J.

1. The appellant/defendant has instituted the present appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 04.10.2014 rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar, whereby the learned First Appellate Court reversed and set aside the well-reasoned judgment and decree dated 13.08.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bahadurgarh.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit for possession, along with consequential relief of permanent injunction, on the grounds that he is the owner in possession of Plot No. 1309, situated within the Awadi of Village Bhaproda, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar. The plot, as delineated in the site plan marked 'EFGD', is bounded on the east by Plot Nos. 1312 and 1310, on the west by a Gali and Plot No. 1308, on the north by Plot No. 1312, and on the south by Plot No. 1305 belonging to the defendant.

2.1 In the year 2011, the defendant allegedly encroached upon a portion of the plaintiff's plot and amalgamated the same with his own plot, as depicted in red and marked 'ABCD' in the site plan. The plaintiff caused the suit land to be demarcated, and the demarcation report dated 04.12.2011 revealed that the defendant had encroached upon approximately 31 square yards (measuring 23' x 12') of Plot No. 1309 by erecting a structure referred to as a 'Chabutra'. Consequently, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking relief.

3. Notice of the suit was duly served upon the defendant, who initially appeared but subsequently chose not to participate and was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte. The plaintiff thereafter adduced evidence ex-parte, following which the learned Civil Judge, Bahadurgarh, dismissed the suit.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree so rendered, the respondent/plaintiff preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar, vide the impugned judgment and decree.

5. Aggrieved by the said impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Appellate Court, the appellant/defendant has filed the instant appeal. Notice of motion was duly issued to the respondent, who appeared through counsel.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent but finds the same to be devoid of merit.

7. As regards the scope of second appeal, it is now a settled proposition of law that in Punjab and Haryana, second appeals preferred are to be treated as appeals under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 and not under Section 100 CPC. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pankajakshi (Dead) through LRs and others V/s Chandrika and others, (2016)6 SCC 157, followed by the judgments in the case of Kirodi (since deceased) through his LR V/s Ram Parkash and others, (2019) 11 SCC 317 and Satender and others V/s Saroj and others, 2022(12) Scale 92. Relying upon the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, no question of law is required to be framed.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the findings recorded by the learned First Appellate Court are unsustainable and legally untenable. It is submitted that the learned Appellate Court failed to duly consider the evidence and pleadings of the parties with the requisite seriousness. Crucially, the Court overlooked that the demarcation report was not properly proved in accordance with law, as the author of the report was not examined as a witness.

8.1 Further, the learned Additional District Judge did not take into account that, at the time of demarcation, only the plaintiff and the Sarpanch of the village were present, and that the demarcation was conducted without adherence to the rules prescribed by the Financial Commissioner. The Additional District Judge also failed to recognize that the demarcation report had been rightly discarded by the learned Civil Judge.

8.2 Moreover, the demarcation report itself expressly states that the ac