Code of Civil Procedure, 1908–Order 1, Rule 8–Suit for granting the permanent injunction in the representative capacity as regards to the land left for common use and Shiv Temple–Dismissal of–First appeal was also dismissed with taking the concurrent view–Instant special appeal–Plaintiff was under the obligation to prove that Thakur RS had submitted the application and map of scheme dated 01.01.1958 and 08.02.1960–He admitted in cross-examination that the application was not submitted in his presence–Application dated 01.01.1958 (Exb. 3) was not an original document and it was not admissible in evidence without production of the original copy–Though UIT was impleaded as one of the defendants but it did not file any written statement in support of the case of the plaintiff–Plaintiff did not make any application for summoning the records from the possession of UIT–Further, Exb. 3 does not contain the signatures–Plaintiff failed to prove the case as pleaded in the plaint–Furthermore, his witnesses make incorrect statements that the map (Exb.1) was prepared in the year 1956–Plaintiff pleaded that the written assurances were given to him and other purchasers but no such document was produced by him–Plea of plaintiff that two applications under Order 13, Rule 2 were wrongly rejected, also cannot be accepted because the revision petition filed by him was dismissed and the said issue cannot be allowed to be reopened–No interference is required in the concurrent findings.
