JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Having heard the learned counsel of either party, it transpires that the Original Suit No.200 of 2001 was instituted by Doon Valley Officers’ Cooperative Housing Society against as many as 22 defendants, seeking permanent injunction to restrain them from interfering with the peaceful possession over the land, in question, (described at foot of the plaint), as\ also, restraining them from making any encroachment over the said property. In this suit, ad interim status quo order was granted, which was maintained by the Court of Additional District Judge too. 2. The matter, somehow, came up before this Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No.212 of 2007, wherein it was ordered on 02.04.2007 as under:- “By the consent of both the parties, Sri Ravindra Maithani, Additional Registrar of this Court is appointed as Conciliator to conciliate the matter between the parties with the help of revenue authorities expeditiously as far as possible.” 3. Accordingly, the Additional Registrar of this Court was appointed as Arbitrator and in compliance of the directions, he sent a letter to the District Magistrate, Dehradun, asking him to constitute a team for measurement and settlement of the boundaries. So, the team was constituted consisting of Survey Kanungo/Lekhpal, Survey Naib Tehsildar and other concerned revenue officials, who made a survey of the spot, in question, and submitted its report to the District Magistrate, who, in turn, sent the same to the Additional Registrar/Arbitrator, vide letter dated 16.08.2007. This letter is the annexure No.1 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the writ petitioner. 4. Anyway, the arbitration/conciliation proceedings could not yield any result amicably, so the matter again came up before this Court, where it was stated by the parties that the efforts for conciliation and meditation had failed. The High Court refrained to make any observation regarding the merits of the case, as the suit was pending before the Trial Court, but was of the view that the order directing the parties to maintain status quo on the spot, by both the parties, was based upon the true appreciation of facts and correct application of law on the subject. 5. The suit started to proceed and the application, paper no.199-C2, was moved by the plaintiff-society seeking to take the Surveyor Report on record, and this application was rejected, not only by the Trial Court (Civil Judge, Jr. 5. The suit started to proceed and the application, paper no.199-C2, was moved by the plaintiff-society seeking to take the Surveyor Report on record, and this application was rejected, not only by the Trial Court (Civil Judge, Jr. Div.) but also by the Revisional Court in Civil Revision No. 33 of 2011. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner-society has come up before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the orders duo, wherein this Court exercises the powers of superintendence over the judicial orders of the Subordinate Courts. 6. It was argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the denial of taking such surveyor report on record has been done under the impugned orders with a wrong interpretation of Sections 75 and 81 of the Arbitration Act. To appreciate the real spirit of these provisions, it is relevant to reproduce the said provisions as under:- Section 75:- “Confidentiality- notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the conciliator and the parties shall keep confidential all matters relating to the conciliation proceedings. Confidentiality shall extend also to the settlement agreement, except where its disclosure is necessary for purposes of implementation and enforcement. Section 81:- Admissibility of evidence in other proceedings.- The parties shall not rely on or introduce as evidence in arbitral or judicial proceedings, whether or not such proceedings relate to the dispute that is the subject of the conciliation proceedings:- (a) Views expressed or suggestions made by the other party in respect of a possible settlement of the dispute; (b) Admissions made by the other party in the course of the conciliation proceedings; (c) Proposals made by the conciliator; (d) The fact that the other party had indicated his willingness to accept a proposal for settlement made by the conciliator.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has put forth his submissions that both the courts below have committed illegality in not accepting the report of the Surveyor (a government constituted body) on the premise that the same was the part of confidentiality of the arbitration proceedings and such evidence cannot be accepted in arbitral or judicial proceedings which is the subject-matter of conciliation between the parties. 8. 8. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondents has argued that both the provisions should be read conjointly and if it is done, then the report of such Surveyor cannot be taken on record in the judicial proceedings pending before the Trial Judge. 9. I feel that the interpretation put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is on the correct lines because the bone of contention between both the parties is as regards the demarcation of a particular land, wherefor a team of revenue officials, having expertise in such work, was sent in compliance of the order of the High Court, which forwarded its report to the Arbitrator. Such report has been submitted by an independent body. It is not such a record requiring any sort of confidentiality inter se the parties on the one hand or between the arbitrator and the parties on the other. Seeking admission of Survey Report of the committee as evidence on the ongoing trial is not a piece of evidence in an arbitral or judicial proceeding pursuant to that arbitration. Such a report is an open and independent task of a government body out of the arbitration proceedings between the parties. Section 81 of the Arbitration Act should be interpreted alongwith its four clauses (Supra) together and not in part. If we read these provisions conjointly, as also has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondents, then I am of the view that the Survey Report dated 20.06.2007, which was sent by the District Magistrate through its letter to the Arbitrator, will play an effective role in finding the nugget of truth between the parties. 10. Argument of learned counsel for the respondents that prior to private surveyor Mr. L.D. Chawla, another report was submitted and the High Court, vide its order dated 28.03.2008, passed the order of the status quo in light of that report, is another aspect of the matter. It does not mean that the High Court, vide its order dated 28.03.2008, accepted the report of private surveyor undertaking it to be justified. Moreover, this private surveyor was engaged by the respondents themselves and the latter were the pay masters of Mr. Chawla. However, the Court would not like to make any comment/observation as to which report is nearer to the truth and leave it to be assessed by the court below. 11. Moreover, this private surveyor was engaged by the respondents themselves and the latter were the pay masters of Mr. Chawla. However, the Court would not like to make any comment/observation as to which report is nearer to the truth and leave it to be assessed by the court below. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon the precedent of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao Vs. Ashalata S. Guram, reported in AIR, 1987, Supreme Court, 117, wherein, the scope of Articles 226 and 227 has been highlighted by the Hon’ble Apex Court and it was held that normally, in exercising that jurisdiction, the High Court would not interfere with the finding of facts unless it is perverse or it is based on no evidence to justify it or it has resulted in manifest of injustice. This precedent, though sounds at its place, but does not have relevancy instantly to appreciate the legal controversy, in question, before this Court. 12. Thus, in view of what has been stated above, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 06.12.2010 and 11.12.2012 are hereby set aside. The Court below is directed to take on record the Surveyor Report dated 20.02.2007 alongwith the Map, which has been forwarded by the District Magistrate by his letter dated 16.08.2007, and consider the same in evidence during the course of trial, however at the same time, defendants will have every opportunity to rebut the same.