IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 283 of 2007 Date of Decision: 24.4.2008 ________________________________________________________________ Prabhu ….. Petitioner Versus Shri Jahla … Respondent. ________________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. ________________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J (Oral). This petition is directed against the order dated 13.12.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div), Barsar, in Civil Suit No. 164 of 2005, rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner for placing on record copy of the demarcation order dated 12.5.2007 of the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Barsar along with statement of parties, report of the Kanungo and Aks Shajra. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for possession of the suit land by way of demolition of the house stated to have been built by the respondent- - 2 - defendant. Evidence in the case was led and the case was fixed for arguments. In the meantime, on 12.5.2007, demarcation report in respect of the same land was given by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade –cum- Naib Tehsildar, Barsar, District Hamirpur. According to the allegations of the petitioner/plaintiff, the statements of the parties were recorded and the Kanungo has also submitted his report and Aks Shajra after demarcation. On 11.6.2007, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application praying therein that he may be allowed to produce the said documents. According to the petitioner/plaintiff, all these documents were per se admissible and he only wanted to tender them in evidence. This application was contested. The learned trial Court took one year and three months to decide this simple application and finally rejected it vide the impugned order. The only ground for rejecting the application was that it would tantamount to reopening the trial and leading additional evidence. The learned trial Court did not take into consideration the fact that this evidence had come into existence only on 12.5.2007 and therefore, there was no occasion for the plaintiff to have produced these documents in evidence at a earlier date. - 3 - It was not the case of any party that this demarcation report is in respect of some other land. Whether the demarcation report along with other documents are per se admissible is not a question to be decided by me in these proceedings. It is for the trial Court to see which of the documents are per se admissible. The evidentiary value of such documents is also for the trial Court to decide but the learned trial Court gravely erred in not permitting these documents to be taken on record. As discussed above, the demarcation report was only given on 12.5.2007 and the application was filed on 11.6.2007 without any delay. Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the learned trial Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law and has gravely erred in rejecting the application. The application is accordingly allowed and the petitioner/plaintiff is permitted to tender all such documents in evidence mentioned in the application. However, as the petitioner/plaintiff has himself stated that he does not want to lead any evidence and only tender these documents in evidence, he shall not be given any opportunity to lead any oral evidence to prove these documents. The trial Court shall decide which of the documents are per se admissible and - 4 - shall admit in evidence only those documents which need no formal proof. The respondent shall be given opportunity by the trial Court to counter the evidence led by the plaintiff. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. No Costs. April 24, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta), J. s.