IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.211 of 2005 Date of decision : October 5, 2010 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Mathi Devi …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. H.C. Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. A bare reading of the judgment of first Appellate Court, which was the last Court of fact, shows that evidence adduced by the parties has not been even referred to, leave alone being appreciated, while endorsing the finding of the trial Court that the water channel, feeding the Gharat of the respondent, had not been restored for four years and that on account of non-restoration of that channel, respondent- plaintiff sustained damages to the tune of `18,000/- per annum. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court (Additional District Judge) are set aside and the matter is remanded to the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Shimla, with a direction to decide Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… the same afresh, after hearing the parties and appreciating the entire relevant evidence. Parties are directed to appear before the first Appellate Court on 28th October, 2010. Record be returned immediately. October 5, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J