12.Even thereafter, the plaintiffs have not cared to amend the relief sought for by them and if according to the plaintiffs, the suit cart track had been obliterated by the defendants, after the institution of the suit, they would have sought for the relief of mandatory injunction also. But the plaintiffs have not come forward with any such relief in the suit by way of amendment. As regards the report and plan of the Advocate Commissioner, Exs.C1 and C2, it is admitted that the plaintiffs have not preferred any objection to the same. It could therefore be seen that the plaintiffs have accepted the report and plan of the Advocate Commissioner but however, they would state that after the institution of the suit, the defendants have obliterated the suit cart track. In this connection, the first plaintiff examined as PW1, during cross examination, would state that when the Advocate Commissioner inspected the site, the defendants obliterated the same by using the tractor and prior to the obliteration of the same, the suit cart track was in existence and running to a length of about 200 feet. Further, according to PW1, the 200 feet length cart track had been obliterated by the first defendant about 9 years back. Therefore, even according to the admission of PW1, it could be seen that the suit cart track had been obliterated by the first defendant, 9 years prior to the date of his deposition. It is found that the first plaintiff was examined as PW1 on 04.06.2009, the suit has come to be laid by the plaintiffs on 25.08.2000, it could therefore be seen cumulatively analysing the evidence of PW1, as well as the report and plan of the Advocate Commissioner, that even on the date of the filing of the suit, the suit cart track was not in existence. If really the suit cart track had been in existence on the date of the filing of the suit and if really the defendants had attempted at that point of time to obliterate
