IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 345 of 2011 Date of decision : September 21, 2011 Churu and anr. …Petitioners. Versus Principal Secretary (HP PWD) and anr. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. A suit is going on between the petitioners, who are plaintiffs, and the respondents, who are defendants. Defendants examined one witness by the name of Vinod Kumar, as DW1, on 4th January, 2011. An application was moved by the respondents for permission of the Court to re-examine the witness (DW1), by reference to certain measurement books, which were also sought to be got produced through that witness. That application has been Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… allowed vide order, dated 7th June, 2011, copy Annexure P-3. Petitioners/plaintiffs are aggrieved by this order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs submits that unless measurement books or their copies were produced along with written statement(s) by the respondents/defendants, the same could not have been allowed to be produced and relied upon or witness could not have been permitted to be re-examined to prove the facts, recorded in such books. Measurement books are in the nature of public record. Normally, there is no scope for tampering with public record. Chances may be there for tampering with even public record, but then the other side can always cross- examine the witness, producing public record to find out if such tampering has taken place. Re-examination of the witness by reference to measurement books is not going to cause any prejudice to the petitioners. Record is sought to be summoned from a witness and not from the respondents/defendants. Therefore, technical objection raised by the petitioners/plaintiffs is not sustainable. 4. In view of above-stated position, petition is dismissed. September 21, 2011 (Surjit Singh), J (pankaj)