IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 111 of 2005. Decided on : July 22, 2010. Gopal Krishan …Petitioner/Plaintiff. Versus Ved Parkash & others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. G.D.Verma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. B.C.Verma, Advocate. For the respondents None. Surjit Singh, J. (Oral) Nobody appears for the respondent, in spite of the fact that they are represented by three counsel. 2. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner – plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction, seeking declaration that he is owner in possession of certain property. Injunction has been sought against the respondents from causing any interference in possession of the plaintiff over the suit land, by raising construction of a structure or making encroachment in any other manner. 3. During the course of trial, petitioner – plaintiff summoned Field Kanungo, to prove demarcation report, carried out by him. That report was carried out under the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? - 2 - orders of Deputy Commissioner (Collector), in a case pending before him (the Deputy Commissioner). Prayer was made by the petitioner for summoning the record of the Deputy Commissioner (Collector), in which the report was supposed to be available. That prayer did not find favour with the trial Court, who observed that the matter was still pending with the Collector and had not been decided. However, liberty was reserved to the petitioner-plaintiff to prove demarcation report, after the matter was finally decided by Deputy Commissioner (Collector). After passing of that order, rest of the evidence of the parties was recorded. 4. When the matter was listed for final hearing, petitioner-plaintiff moved an application for proving the aforesaid demarcation report by summoning the record from the office of Deputy Commissioner (Collector) and also summoning the concerned Kanungo as a witness. That application has been rejected vide impugned order, dated 24.5.2005, copy Annexure P-6. 5. Factual position, as stated hereinabove, itself shows that trial Court was not justified in passing the impugned order dated 24.5.2005 and rejecting the prayer of petitioner-plaintiff to prove demarcation report, because in its order, dated 26.6.2004, right had been reserved to the petitioner-plaintiff to prove the said report. As a matter of fact, petitioner-plaintiff ought to have been permitted to - 3 - prove the report in the first instance itself, when he sought summoning of the record from the office of Deputy Commissioner (Collector). The fact of pendency of the matter with Deputy Commissioner (Collector) in which that report had been placed was not a lawful ground for rejecting the prayer. 6. In view of the above said position, petition is allowed. Impugned order, Annexure P-6, is set aside and it is ordered that the petitioner-plaintiff shall be afforded reasonable opportunity to prove demarcation report in question. July 22, 2010 (PC). (Surjit Singh), J.