JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The plaintiff instituted civil suit No. 84/2000, before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn) Chamba. In the afore suit, he claimed the making of a decree for declaration, and, for possession, reliefs whereof, are extracted hereinafter: "A) Decree for declaration to this effect that area of the land comprising in khasra No. 909, khatta khatoni No. 115/121 situated in mohal shikari, Pargana Tissa, Tehsil Churah, Distt. Chamba is 03-08-00 bighas and not 01-19-00 bighas as shown in the present Jamabandi. Thus, the area of Khasra No. 909 (suit land) may be declared 03-08-00 bighas. (B) Decree for possession of the land comprised in khatta khatoni No. 115/121 bearing khasra Nos. 909 measuring 01-19-00 bighas out of the total land 03-08-00 bighas which has been encroached upon by the defendant, situated in mohali Shikari, Pargana, Tissa, Tehsil Churah, District Chamba, be passed in favour of the plaintiff and proforma defendants No. 2 to 4 and against defendant No. 1 with costs." 2. The learned trial Judge, through its verdict made, on 30.6.2005, upon Civil suit No. 84/2000, proceeded to dismiss the afore civil suit. The aggrieved plaintiff constituted, against the afore made verdict, of, dismissal, of, his suit, by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn), Chamba, civil appeal bearing No. 56 of 2005, before the learned first appellate Court. The learned first appellate Court, through its verdict, made on 26.9.2006, upon Civil Appeal No. 56 of 2005, dismissed the afore civil appeal, and, obviously affirmed and maintained the verdict, of, dismissal of civil suit No. 84 of 2000, as made earlier by the learned trial judge concerned. 3. The plaintiff is aggrieved from the afore concurrently recorded judgments, and, decrees, as made by both the learned Courts below, and, is led to there against institute the instant appeal before this Court. When the instant appeal came up for hearing on 16.5.2007, it became admitted, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law: 1. Whether there has been misreading and mis-appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence by both the Courts below? 2. Whether the learned first appellate Court erred in holding the suit to be not maintainable? 4. Ext. PA is the jamabandi appertaining to the suit land, wherein the area of the suit land, is, reflected to be 1-19-00 bighas. Whether there has been misreading and mis-appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence by both the Courts below? 2. Whether the learned first appellate Court erred in holding the suit to be not maintainable? 4. Ext. PA is the jamabandi appertaining to the suit land, wherein the area of the suit land, is, reflected to be 1-19-00 bighas. A rebuttable presumption of truth is attached to the entries occurring in the records of rights. Since, the entries occurring in the record of rights, were a sequel of settlement operations, becoming conducted, in the mohal concerned. Therefore, the reflections of the area of the suit land therein, hence as 1-19-00 bighas, prima-facie, assume an aura of solemnity and truthfulness, as no cogent rebuttal evidence became adduced. The reasons for the afore conclusion, arise from the factum, that during the course of holding of settlement operations, by the revenue agency concerned, rather all the relevant documents, with respect to the relevant estates, hence are made available to the settlement staff concerned. The apposite musabi, is one of the most important documents, for the settlement staff, hence holding valid settlement operations in the mohal concerned. The dimensions/areas of all the apposite estates, hence occurring in the mohal concerned, are, reflected in the musabi. The updations of all the relevant records, appertaining to any estate right holder, and as arising from valid mutations of inheritance, exchange or sale and relinquishments, if not earlier entered in the relevant columns, of the Jamabandi concerned, also occur during settlement operations. Since, the apposite Jamabandi has been prepared, during the course of settlement operations, as became undertaken in the mohal concerned. Therefore, the area of the suit land, as entered in the Jamabandi, appertaining to the suit land, is to be concluded, to be in concurrence, as well as in complete tandem, with the displays thereof, as occur in the musabi. The afore discrepancy was curable, only through, an appropriate application, for apposite corrections, rather being carried in the Musabi, hence becoming filed, naturally before the revenue agency concerned. Only thereafters similar corresponding entries could validly occur in the jamabandi concerned. The afore discrepancy was curable, only through, an appropriate application, for apposite corrections, rather being carried in the Musabi, hence becoming filed, naturally before the revenue agency concerned. Only thereafters similar corresponding entries could validly occur in the jamabandi concerned. Unless the afore exercises were earlier, to the filing of the extant suit, hence undertaken by the plaintiff concerned, thereupon, the bar constituted under Section 171 (2) (vi) of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter: "171 (2) (vi):- Exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters within the jurisdiction of Revenue Officers- (2) A Civil Court shall not exercise jurisdiction over any of the following matters, namely (vi) the correction of any entry in a record of rights, [periodical] record or register of mutations; hence completely barring the making(s) of corrections, in the Musabi or the record(s) of rights, would become aroused, especially when the detailings therein, of, dimension(s) of the suit land, did occur, during holding of settlement operations in the mohal concerned. Moreover, since the aforesaid detailing therein, did occur, only after the dimension(s) of the apposite suit land, becoming borrowed from the Musabi concerned. Therefore, for wants of the afore recoursings by the plaintiff, does constrain this Court, to concur with the findings, returned on issue No. 4, by the learned trial Judge, wherein he for the afore reasons, has declared that the extant suit is not maintainable, before him. 5. Be that as it may, even the field books, are to bear completest concurrence, and, harmony with the musabi concerned. The plaintiff proclaimed, that after the afore correction being made, a decree for possession of land measuring 1-19-00 bighas, as comprised in khasra No. 909, dimension whereof are claimed to be 03-08-00 bighas, being rendered, vis-à-vis, him. However, since as aforestated, the correction of the Jamabandi concerned, cannot be endeavored by the plaintiff, in the instant suit. Therefore, the afore made purported encroachments, by the defendants, upon the plaintiff's land, measuring 01-19-00 bighas, though came to be purportedly reflected in the demarcation report, hence carried in Ext. PW 1/A, rather also cannot come to be sustained by this Court. Moreover, the further reasons for this Court, in not accepting Ext. Therefore, the afore made purported encroachments, by the defendants, upon the plaintiff's land, measuring 01-19-00 bighas, though came to be purportedly reflected in the demarcation report, hence carried in Ext. PW 1/A, rather also cannot come to be sustained by this Court. Moreover, the further reasons for this Court, in not accepting Ext. PW 1/A, is comprised, further in the factum that the afore exhibit, does not detail the salient validating feature, inasmuch as PW-1, who proceeded to undertake the exercise of holding demarcation of the apposite contiguous estates, evidently failing, to determine the relevant pakka points from the musabi concerned. Furthermore, Ext. PW 1/A also does not detail that PW-1, carried measurement through his either adopting the valid triangular or square system of measurement. Thus, since Ext. PW 1/A, is, in transgression of the relevant mandate carried in the H.P. Land Records Manual, therefore, it hold no legal sanctity. Moreover, when Ext. PW 1/A is silent, with respect to the area of khasra No. 909, being not 1-19-00, bighas, rather it being 03-08-00 bighas. Consequently, since the contesting defendant, is, the owner of lands contiguous to the suit land, hence, it is difficult to conclude that the area, if any, in possession of the contesting defendants, is, not owned by him, nor it can be concluded that the plaintiff is entitled to any decree for possession. 6. Be that as it may, further fortification to the afore inference, becomes garnered from the factum, that adjoining to khasra No. 909, occurs government land, comprised in khasra Nos. 883, 893 and 919, yet dimension(s) of the afore land adjoining to the suit khasra Nos., rather not becoming reflected in Ext. PW 1/A. Consequently, the afore Ext. PW 1/A, is made dehors any reliance being made upon the musabi concerned, whereas, the relevant musabi was the most relevant, and, important document, for making the relevant measurements. 7. Further, during the pendency of the instant appeal, before this Court, the plaintiff instituted an application, cast under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. With the afore application, he appended an application, filed before the Revenue Officer concerned, where throughs he strived for seeking correction of the dimensions of suit khasra No. 909, from 01-19-00 bighas to 03-08-00. The afore application resulted in an order of the Revenue Officer concerned. With the afore application, he appended an application, filed before the Revenue Officer concerned, where throughs he strived for seeking correction of the dimensions of suit khasra No. 909, from 01-19-00 bighas to 03-08-00. The afore application resulted in an order of the Revenue Officer concerned. Upon the afore application, the Revenue Officer concerned, after making apposite inter se comparisons, inter se the dimensions of the suit land, as occurred in the field book, with the musabi concerned, has made an order, that the dimension of the suit khasra No. is, incorrectly recorded in the Jamabandi concerned, to be 01-09-00 bighas, whereas its correct dimension, is 03-08-00 bighas. The afore application, bearing No. 12549 of 2013 was contested by the respondents, through theirs instituting a reply thereto. In the reply furnished to the application, the respondent contended, that the participation of the defendants in the relevant proceedings, is a forged participation. Therefore, it is contended that no reliance can be placed upon, either the report of the revenue officer concerned, hence detailing the aforesaid factum, or upon proceedings, appertaining to the determinations of the dimensions of the contiguous estate(s) of the contesting litigants. 8. The mandate contained in order 41 Rule 27 CPC, permits this Court, to allow adduction of additional evidence, only when it is just and essential, for adjudicating the controversy, arising amongst the contesting litigants. Though, this Court, has (supra), stated that the plaintiffs' suit, is barred by the mandate of clause (vi) of sub-section (2) Section 171 of the H.P. Lands Revenue Act, as becomes extracted (supra). However, since the plaintiff, through an application, cast under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, has strived, for the placing on record, the report as well as the consequent therewith proceedings, as becomes drawn by the Revenue Officers concerned, and, both disclosing that the dimensions/areas, of the suit khasra No. is not 01-19-00 bighas, rather is 03-08-00 bighas. Therefore, when the appropriate remedy under law, has been purportedly recoursed by the plaintiff. Consequently, all afore may be just and essential for deciding the lis at hand. In sequel, even if there is/are departures or breaches from the principles of natural justice, either in the drawing of the relevant proceedings, or even when there is any forged participation of the defendant in the relevant proceedings. Consequently, all afore may be just and essential for deciding the lis at hand. In sequel, even if there is/are departures or breaches from the principles of natural justice, either in the drawing of the relevant proceedings, or even when there is any forged participation of the defendant in the relevant proceedings. Nonetheless, all the afore are contestable before the learned first appellate Court, after remand to it, by this Court, to, rather, in accordance with law, decide the issue appertaining to the validity of the strived correction, and, the issue with respect to the validity of making of a decree for possession, vis-à-vis, the suit land. The sequitur is that CMP No. 12549 of 2013 is allowed. 9. The inevitable inference, is that this Court retains the instant regular second appeal, on its docket, uptill, upon remand, of the lis, to the learned first appellate Court, and, only after the latter permitting the contesting litigants, to adduce, their respective evidences, with respect to the validity or otherwise of the proceedings/orders, as drawn by the revenue officer concerned, hence the learned first appellate Court, rendering fresh finding(s) qua validity or otherwise of the apposite order, for correction and or, of proceedings(supra) drawn thereon(s), besides also upon its returning fresh findings vis-à-vis, purported encroachments, being made, by the defendants, upon the plaintiff's land. 10. Necessarily, the learned first appellate Court, shall, order for re-demarcation of the suit property, only after its becoming convinced, that the evidence adduced by the contesting litigants, vis-à-vis, the apposite order, as well as vis-à-vis, the consequent therewith proceedings, as, hence drawn by the revenue officer concerned, are of solemn evidentiary worth. The afore exercise be ensured to be mandatorily completed within six months hereafter. The verdict of the learned first appellate Court, upon issues (supra) shall be placed, before this Court, after conclusion of six months. 11. With the afore observations, the appeal is accordingly disposed of. Also, the pending applications, if any, are disposed of. No costs.