A randomized control study on population with plantar fasciitis. Heel pain is affecting around 10-15% of total population. Mostly alters the persons with sedentary lifestyle and also affects athletes. Different types of intervention plasma rich therapy, extracorporeal shock wave therapy, corticosteroids, surgical procedure and physiotherapy for management of plantar fasciitis. Surgical intervention results in complications and researches don’t show any firm results. Manual therapy can be an effective method in treating plantar fasciitis. So this study was planned to evaluate the efficacy of instrument assisted soft tissue mobilization in patients with plantar fasciitis. Subjects will be screened for plantar fasciitis using inclusion criteria. Informed consent will be taken for participation in study. Participants will be allocated in two groups. Treatment protocol for group A – Warm up(10-12 min);IASTM,done at 30-60 degrees angle for 40-120 seconds; Stretching 3 repetitions for 30 seconds; Strengthening, high repetitions low dose exercises; Cryotherapy, 10-20 minutes. Treatment protocol for group B – Achilles tendon stretch (30 second hold -3 repetitions);Calf stretch (30 second hold – 3 repetitions); Plantar fascia self stretch (10 second hold ,10 repetitions at a time ,3 sets of 10 repetitions per day); Ball rolling exercise (rolling for 2 minutes); Plantar aponeurosis loading (10 repetitions with 2 second hold). Treatments will be given for 2 weeks with 3 sessions in a week. Data would be recorded at day 0 then at completion of treatment of 2 weeks using VAS and FFI for pain and disability respectively. The VAS and FFI mean scores at the outset did not differ significantly between the study group and the control group. However, the post-intervention means of the VAS and FFI in the experimental group are significantly different from those of the control group. Reductions in VAS and FFI scores of 60.95 and 57.34 per cent, respectively, were seen in the treatment group, while reductions of 32.5 and 31.85 percent were seen in the control group. The MCID for VAS is 2.0; therefore, a result of 4.1 in the experimental group and 2.0 in the control group is clinically significant. The mean change for VAS in the experimental group is 4.1, and that in the control group is 2.0. When compared to the MCID for FFI, which is 12, the results seen in both the experimental and control groups are clinically significant, with the mean change for FFI in the experimental group being 48.32 and that in the control group being 26.44. The IASTM group, on the other hand, saw larger improvements in the mean of both end variables compared to the exercise group. The present study set a time constraint of two weeks, and previous research has shown that PF healing will take less time using IASTM than it does spontaneously. So, in the IASTM group, after 6 sessions of therapy, there was a statistically and clinically significant improvement in both measures, while in the control group, the result for VAS is statistically significant only, but for FFI, there is a statistically and clinically significant improvement. The mean change in VAS and FFI scores is larger in the IASTM group compared to the exercise group. It follows that IASTM may represent a personal preference in lieu of more standard medical care. However, further study may be required to ascertain whether or not the enhancement will endure for a significant amount of time.