7. The appellant was examined as PW-1 and another witness was examined as PW-2. Both of them however stated in their deposition about the respondents 1 to 8 dismantling the basement in the site from 22-121999 to 25-12-1999. As rightly observed by the learned trial Court except making bald allegation, that all the respondents dismantled the basement, the manner in which the basement was dismantled for a period of three days was not stated by the witnesses in their deposition. Further as per the certified copy of the judgment in OS.No. 96 of 1995 in which the appellant is the plaintiff, the learned Junior Civil Judge held that though the plaintiff proved that he purchased the schedule mentioned site under a registered sale deed, he failed to prove his possession over the said site. Though the Commissioner found the existence of the basement, the learned trial Court observed that the appointment of the Commissioner and his visit was subsequent to the alleged incident in this case; and therefore, the evidence of the Commissioner is of no consequence. When the act of demolition of basement continued for a period of three days, the appellant could have, as rightly pointed out by the learned trial Court, took some photograph of the site when the act of demolition was going on and could have filed them into the court. Moreover, when there is a civil dispute between both parties and the Civil Court held that the plaintiff i.e., the appellant herein failed to establish the identity of the property and his possession over the property. The learned trial Court is justified in acquitting the respondents 1 to 8 since
