IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 265 of 2007 Date of decision: 8.5.2008 Chaman Lal Petitioner. Versus Gian Chand. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent. Mr. K.D.Sood, and Mr. Sanjeev Sood, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J. This petition is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Barsar, District Hamirpur, dated 31st October, 2007 in CMA No. 139 of 2007, whereby he has rejected the application filed by the present petitioner, here-in-after referred to as the plaintiff, for placing on record the demarcation report. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction against the defendant on the basis of the demarcation report given by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Barsar. This report was challenged by the respondent, here-in-after referred to as the defendant, 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? before the S.D.O.(Civil) Barsar. The appeal was dismissed and thereafter the defendant approached the Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner accepted the revision petition filed by the defendant and set aside the demarcation report. The plaintiff thereafter approached the Financial Commissioner. Though the Financial Commissioner rejected the revision petition, he ordered that on the application filed by the plaintiff the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, would give his fresh demarcation. Consequently, the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, also conducted fresh demarcation and gave his demarcation report. The plaintiff by means of the application wanted to bring this report on record. This application was contested mainly on the ground that the said report was under challenge before the SDO (Civil), Barsar, who has stayed the order of demarcation given by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, and therefore, the same could not be permitted to be placed on record. The learned trial Court has basically given this reasoning while rejecting the application and has held that since the demarcation report is under challenge and has been stayed the same cannot be permitted to be placed on record. I am constrained to state that the learned trial Court did not even care to go through the earlier order passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 26 of 2005 in the same suit. At that time, the plaintiff had wanted to place on record the order of the SDO (Civil), Barsar, upholding the earlier demarcation report and the said prayer of the plaintiff was rejected only on the ground that the revision petition filed by the defendant was pending before the Divisional Commissioner, who had stayed the operation of the orders of the SDO (Civil), Barsar. This plea was not accepted by this Court and this Court held that the order of the SDO(Civil), Barsar, should be taken on record, however, subject to the condition that in case the same is set-aside the other party would have a right to place the order passed in appeal on record. The learned Court was bound to follow this judgement. But it appears that it has either not cared to go through the earlier judgement of this Court or the same was not brought to its notice. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner cannot be deprived of his right to place on record the demarcation report. The order of demarcation is an order passed in quasi-judicial proceedings and has direct bearing on the result of the case. It is a public document, which is sought to be placed on record. No party can be stopped from placing such documents on record. Consequently, the revision is accepted. The order of the learned trial Court is set aside and the plaintiff is permitted to place on record the demarcation report dated 18th March, 2007. However, it is made clear that in case the said demarcation report is set-aside by the appellate authority or the revisional authority the respondent-defendant shall also have a similar right to place on record the subsequent orders passed in the proceedings arising out of the said order. With these observations, the CMPMO is disposed of, with no order as to costs. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 16th June, 2008. 8th May, 2008 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™