- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
(2.) By means of the present appeal, the plaintiff/appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2014 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Bijnor in Civil Appeal No.78 of 2012 (Athar Nishat vs. Smt. Haleema & another), dismissing the appeal arising out of judgment and decree dated 31.08.2012 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. D.), Court No.1, Nagina Binor in Original Suit No.384 of 2000.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant while challenging the judgment and decree has argued the present second appeal with the following substantial questions of law :- "Whether the trial court has ignored the material evidence on record while the measurement has been given on the map itself submitted along with the plaint by the plaintiff and supported by oral evidence. Whether the trial court has committed error of law and fact in ignoring the comparison of map submitted by the plaintiff and commissioner while it is evident and established on record that the encroached land is identifiable with all measurement. Whether the Lower Appellate Court has miserably failed to discharge itself duty as Appellate Court by not discussing the evidence himself and by not recording its own independent finding which is the duty of the Lower Appellate Court as last court of act. Whether the judgment of the trial court as well as the Appellate Court are sustainable in law for the reasons that it is contrary to the evidence on record and the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court is not judgment of Appellate Court at all.";