IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 805 of 2025 Date of Decision: 08.07.2026 ____________________________________________________ Ramesh Kumar & another ...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents. Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Ms. Ranjana Pathania, Advocate, vice Ms. Archna Dutt, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Additional Advocate General. __________________________________________________ Romesh Verma , Judge(oral) The present petition arises out of the order as passed by the learned Civil Judge, Chamba, H.P. dated 03.07.2025, whereby application filed by the plaintiffs/ petitioners under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC to place on record the copy of demarcation report dated 19.07.2014 and to exhibit the same has been order to be dismissed with costs. 2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiffs /petitioners filed a suit for Suit for recovery of damages to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- only (Rs. Ten lacs only) and mandatory injunction against State of H.P. and its other functionaries. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3 It has been averred in the plaint that they are owners in possession of suit land comprised in Khatta Khatoni No. 90/105 min, Khasra No. 1349 measuring 01-02-00 Bigha, Khasra No. 1346 measuring 00-03-00 Bigha situated at Mohal Gosan, Pargna & Tehsil Bharmour, District Chamba (HP) which is just adjoining to the PWD road leading from Bharmour to Hadsar. 4 As per the case of the plaintiffs, the defendants started the widening work of the said road and while doing so, they had acted in a very negligent manner and threw the entire "Malba and debris" excavated during the widening of road, over the suit land and due to which the suit land started sliding and it became a heap of muck and rendered it uncultivable. It has been stated that plaintiffs are poor persons having no other source of income. They approached the defendants time and again and requested to remove the "Malba" thrown by them over the suit land and to restore it to its original position. It is the case of the plaintiffs that defendant No.4, the Executing Engineer, HP PWD Division Bharmour, District Chamba, H.P. told the plaintiffs to get the suit land demarcated before claiming any compensation. Therefore, the plaintiffs obtained the demarcation of suit land on 31.10.2013 and approached the defendant No. 3 i.e. The Chief 3 Engineer, HPPWD North Zone Dharamshala (HP) for compensation alongwith demarcation report. It has been prayed in the suit, that decree for recovery for damages to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants and further decree for mandatory injunction by seeking directions to the defendants to remove the “Malba” thrown by them over the suit land was prayed. 5 During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs/petitioners filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of CPC to place on record the copy of demarcation report dated 19.07.2014. It has been stated in the application that at the time of filing of the suit, the plaintiff could not file the demarcation report, which is very essential to prove the case of the plaintiffs and now the plaintiffs intend to get it placed on record and to exhibit the same in order to reach at the just conclusion of the case. 6 The said application was resisted by the defendants/respondents by filing reply, wherein it has been stated that since the demarcation report has been obtained much prior to filing of the present suit, therefore, at the later 4 stage the said application cannot be allowed and the same deserves to be dismissed. 7 Learned trial Court vide its impugned order dated 03.07.2025, dismissed the application filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners. 8 Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioners/plaintiffs have approached this Court. 9 It is contended by Ms. Ranjana Pathania, Advocate, vice Ms. Archna Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioners that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is erroneous and liable to be quashed and set aside. She submits that the case set up by the plaintiffs/petitioners is based solely on the demarcation report obtained by them. She further submits that, by inadvertence, the date of the demarcation report has been mentioned as 19.07.2014 instead of 31.10.2013, as the demarcation report which they intend to place on record depicts both the dates. She further submits that the petitioners/plaintiffs cannot be penalized on account of defective drafting and that, in order to do substantial justice, the present application deserves to be allowed. 5 10 On the other hand, Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, learned Additional Advocate General has defended the impugned order as passed by the learned Trial Court. 11 I have heard Ms. Ranjana Pathania, Advocate, vice Ms. Archna Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioners and Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondents. 12 Admittedly, the plaintiffs/petitioners have filed the suit for recovery of damages to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- alongwith the decree for mandatory injunction. 13 Para 6 of the plaint reads as follows: “That the defendant No. 4 told the plaintiffs to get the suit land demarcated before claiming any compensation, so the plaintiffs obtained the demarcation of suit land on 31.10.2013 and approached the defendant No. 3 for compensation alongwith demarcation report. Initially the defendant No. 3 kept the matter pending and now he has finally refused to restore the suit land to its original condition and to pay compensation.” 14 From the perusal of para 6 of the plaint, it clearly reveals that the plaintiffs in the plaint have stated that they obtained the demarcation of the suit land on 31.10.2013 and approached defendant No. 3 for seeking compensation. If the copy of the demarcation report intended to be placed on record is seen, in second line, the date has been mentioned as 6 31.10.2013 and, thereafter, in the third line, it has been recorded that on 19.07.2014, the officials went to the spot for carrying out the demarcation. The fact remains that the plaintiffs/petitioners are basing their claim on this demarcation report, and merely on the ground that different dates have been mentioned in the application cannot deprive the present petitioners for the relief sought. It has been incorporated in the demarcation report that, as per the office letter dated 31.10.2013, the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, on the application of the applicant, visited the spot on 19.07.2014 and carried out the demarcation. Solely on the technical ground that the dates incorporated in the application and the demarcation report do not correspond cannot be taken as a ground for rejecting the application of the present petitioners. The Courts are meant to impart substantial justice, and the rules of law are meant to serve the cause of justice. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Trial Court has erred in declining the prayer of the present petitioners on technical grounds. The petitioners have been able to make out a case for placing the demarcation report on record. 15. Consequently, in view of the averments made in the petition and in view of the submissions as made by learned 7 counsel for the petitioners, the same is allowed and the impugned order as passed by the learned Civil Judge, Chamba, H.P. dated 03.07.2025 is quashed and set-aside and the application filed by the present petitioners under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of CPC is allowed. 16 However, it is made clear that merely allowing of the application of the petitioners does not prove their case rather the onus to prove the same lies upon them and the learned trial court shall proceed in the matter strictly in accordance with law without being uninfluenced by any observations made by this Court. All the pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stands disposed off. (Romesh Verma) Judge July 8, 2026 (Nisha)