RFA 84 of 2003. 2.1.2010 Present: Mr. B.M.Chauhan, counsel for the appellant. Mr. R.K.Bawa, Advocate General, with Ms. Ruma Kaushik, for the respondents. The plaintiff is in appeal against the judgment of the learned District Judge dismissing his suit claiming damages to the suit land caused by the respondent by laying of water supply pipe through it. I am not noticing the facts in detail, in view of the order which I propose to pass. The learned District Judge dismisses the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that demarcations relied upon by the plaintiff are not in accordance with the High Court Rules & Orders. This is one of the grounds relied upon by the learned Court below in dismissing the suit. When the suit was ripe for arguments, an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for placing on record demarcation report Ex. DX as also to urge this report as additional evidence, was filed with the learned Court below. This application was resisted by the plaintiff on the ground that no opportunity to test the authenticity / veracity of the report was granted to the plaintiff. The authors of the reports having not been produced in evidence, the report itself would not constitute proof of -2- the facts stated therein. The reply filed by the plaintiff is in detail. The learned Court by an order dated 7.11.2001 holds that the report is a public document and, therefore, deserves to be admitted without proof. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Section 78 of the Evidence Act does not envisage such report as being public document, proof whereof can be dispensed with. The crucial point for determination in this case was as to whether the plaintiff has been able to establish that there has been encroachment of his land by the State and that he has not been compensated for utilization of his land. The plaintiff relied upon tatimas Ext. PW-5/A and PW-5/B and demarcation report also prepared by the office Kanungo (who is also a public officer). The plaintiff supported the authenticity of this report Ex.PW-8/B by production of PW-4 who was the Junior Engineer and whose statement Ex.PW-4/A had been recorded by the office kanungo who had gone for conducting demarcation and Shri Tilak Verma, PW- 8. The learned Court should have granted an opportunity to the plaintiff to cross examine the author of the report Ex.DX in order to test -3- the veracity of the report , moreso when it stated that there had been no encroachment on the land of the plaintiff. This having not been done, the learned Court has fallen into error in taking the report on record straightway. In these circumstances, the judgment of the Court below is set aside. The Court shall hear the parties afresh on the material already on record. In case reliance is to be placed on Ex.DX for non suiting the plaintiff, he shall be granted an opportunity of cross examining the author of this report to test its veracity. Needless to say that the plaintiff shall be granted an opportunity of leading evidence in rebuttal to the report Ex.DX. No other evidence shall be allowed to be produced on record of this case. This appeal is accordingly allowed in the terms indicated above. Parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Shimla on 22.2.2010. The District Judge shall endeavour to dispose of the case not later than six months after the parties first put in appearance before him. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending applications shall stand disposed of. Records if received be sent back immediately. January 2, 2010 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.