IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 433 of 2022 Decided on: 03.04.2025 Janardhan Premi .…Petitioner. Versus Prem Vashisth …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Aman Sood and Ms. Sunita Sood, Advocates. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) By way of instant petition, order dated 30.05.2022, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No. 1, Hamirpur, H.P. in CMA No. 1050 of 2022 in Civil Suit No. 105 of 2011, has been assailed. Learned Trial Court has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for placing on record additional documents. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:9047 ) 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff. He has filed a suit against defendant with the allegation that the defendant is trying to interfere in the suit land which is exclusively owned and possessed by the plaintiff. It is also the case of the plaintiff that by way of interference the defendant is encroaching upon the suit land. 3. The suit is being contested by the defendant by denying the allegation of interferences and encroachment, though the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit land has been admitted. 4. After conclusion of evidence by both the sides, plaintiff filed the application for producing on record a report of demarcation got conducted by him from Revenue Officer by adhering to the procedure under Section 107 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. Learned Trial Court has rejected the application by holding that such application at belated stage cannot be allowed, more particularly, for the reasons that the evidence of the parties had concluded in the year 2017 and plaintiff had filed the application in 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:9047 ) the year 2021, seeking permission to produce the demarcation report dated 27.02.2021. Learned Trial Court also noticed that during the pendency of this suit, on the application of the plaintiff himself a Local Commissioner was appointed and in such process also Revenue Officer had demarcated the land and submitted his report. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the plaintiff only intended to place on record a piece of evidence, which would have helped the Court in deciding the controversy effectively. He submits that the plaintiff has already filed the objections to the report of the Local Commissioner which are still uncontested. 6. Sub-rule 2 of Rule 10 of Order 26, of the Code of Civil Procedure, reads as under:- “10(2) Report and depositions to be evidence in suit. The report of the Commissioner and the evidence taken by him (but not the evidence without the report) shall be evidence in the suit and shall form part of the record; but the 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:9047 ) Court or, with the permission of the Court, any of the parties to the suit may examine the Commissioner personally in open Court touching any of the matters referred to him or mentioned in his report, or as to his report, or as to the manner in which he has made the investigation.” 7. Admittedly, the report of the Local Commissioner is on record and it becomes a piece of evidence by itself. The person aggrieved has a right to challenge the report. In the instant case, plaintiff has already laid such challenge. Once that being so, without first report of demarcation being set aside, the Court will not look into any subsequent report. In this view of the matter, no fault can be found with the impugned order, however, this does not mean that the procedure prescribed under aforesaid provision of law has to be foreclosed. 8. In result, the petition is dismissed with direction to the learned Trial Court to first decide the objections raised by plaintiff to the report of Local Commissioner in accordance with law before deciding the suit on merits. 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:9047 ) 9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) 3rd April, 2025 Judge (sushma)