JUDGMENT : Aikman, J. The only plea urged before me in this appeal is that the courts below have wrongly rejected a certain document, which was tendered in evidence, on the part of the defendant-appellant. The suit was one to eject the defendant from a piece of land which he cultivated, The defendant pleaded that he was a tenant of the plaintiff, and that he was entitled to hold the land under a compromise between his predecessor-in-title and the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff. In proof of this compromise he tendered in evidence a certified copy of the order of a court passed upon the compromise. This document the courts below refused to receive in evidence, on the ground that it was not proved or admitted. In my opinion it ought to have been received. It is I hold, a copy of a document, forming the record of an act of a public judicial officer, being the copy of the order of a court passed, as I take it, in terms of the compromise. 2. As such, the copy was admissible in evidence under section 77 of the Evidence Act. As to whether the parties to the compromise were the predecessors-in-title of the parties to this suit or as to whether the Compromise related to the land in suit or as to the effect of the compromise, I pronounce no opinion, but I hold that the courts below were wrong In not receiving the document in evidence. I set aside the decision of the courts below and remand the case under section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the court of first instance with directions to re-admit the, suit under its original number on the record, to receive in evidence the document referred to above, and proceed to decide whether, with reference to the terms of the compromise, the present suit is maintainable. Cost here and hitherto will abide the result.