In a Second Appeal, the court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings of fact returned by lower courts unless a substantial error in law or procedure is established.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Defendants are in Second Appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below; whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents for permanent and mandatory injunction, has been partly decreed.

2. It was the pleaded case of the plaintiffs in the plaint that they are owners in possession of land measuring 1K 14M. It was alleged that defendants had illegally encroached upon part of the suit land measuring 2¾ M by merging it into their boundary wall. It was further alleged that defendants are threatening plaintiffs to encroach upon the remaining land of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, suit for possession and mandatory and permanent injunction was filed on 05.10.2009.

3. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Subdivision, Bilaspur had partly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 13.10.2016, as follows: -

“10. As a sequel to my findings recorded here-in-above, the instant suit is partly decreed with costs. Accordingly, a decree for possession of the suit land to the extent of 2 3/4 Marla is granted in favour of the plaintiffs and the defendants are directed to hand over the actual, physical possession of the said part (2 3/4 Marlas) of the suit land to the plain removing their illegal construction raised thereon. Further, the defendants are also permanently restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property in any manner. However, the claim of the plaintiffs for unliquidated damages is dismissed. Decree-Sheet be drawn and file be consigned to records after due compliance.”

4. The Civil Appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide judgment and decree dated 27.07.2023. Hence, the present second appeal by the defendants.

5. The only ground on which learned counsel for the appellants assails concurrent judgments of the learned Courts below is that the defendants/appellants have been found to have encroached upon the suit land on the basis of a Demarcation Report submitted by the Local Commissioner. Learned counsel contends that the said Demarcation Report could not have been relied upon as demarcation was conducted in the absence of pucca point. It is submitted that although both the Courts have duly taken note of the fact that defendants had raised objections to the Demarcation Report yet suit of the plaintiffs has been decreed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that therefore, the impugned judgments and decrees have been passed by the Courts below without application of mind. The impugned judgments are based upon the report of the Local Commissioner which, otherwise could not have been relied upon as the demarcation was carried without ascertaining the pucca point, in utter violation of the standing order of Financial Commissioner. It is settled law that the report of the Local Commissioner which has been prepared in complete violation of the standing order of the Financial Commissioner and without ascertaining pucca point cannot be relied upon.

7. Learned counsel further submits that the appellants had filed a detailed objection to the report of the Local Commissioner which was prepared in utter violation of the Standing order of Financial Commissioner but the objection submitted by the appellants were not taken care by the courts below and instead passed the judgment and decree which are not sustainab