JUDGMENT : NELSON SAILO, J. 1. Heard Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. B Lalramenga, learned counsel for the respondent. By filing this First appeal, the appellant has challenged the Judgment & Order dated 30.01.2023 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge-II, Aizawl in Eviction Suit No. 6/2014, by which the Eviction Suit has been decided in favour of the present respondent and the instant appellant has been directed to demolish the Assam type building, garage and 4 (four) water tanks constructed beyond his LSC No. 203/1986 and vacate the occupation within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of order. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the appellant has a plot of land covered by LSC No. Azl 203/1986, which is converted from a V.C Pass. The appellant also claims to have another plot of land adjacent to the said LSC covered by a V.C Pass dated 01.03.1971. The instant respondent, on the other hand, also possess a certain plot of land covered by LSC No. 103702/01/2188 of 2014 which is converted from House Pass No. 209/2003. Alleging that there are certain encroachment over his land, the appellant filed Declaratory Suit No. 5/2001 before the Court of Assistant Dy. Commissioner, Aizawl praying for a declaration that he is the original owner of his suit land covered by LSC Azl 203/1986 and that the same does not encroach upon the land of the instant respondent who was arrayed as defendant No. 5 in the Declaratory Suit. The Declaratory Suit was disposed of by the learned Court below vide Judgment & Order dated 10.11.2006 by deciding the Declaratory Suit in favour of the instant appellant as was prayed for. 3. Aggrieved, the instant respondent who was the defendant No. 5 in the Declaratory Suit filed No. RFA No. 21/2006 before the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge-I, Aizawl. The same was disposed of vide Judgment & Order dated 22.03.2010 by setting aside the Judgment & Order dated 10.11.2006 passed by the Court below in Declaratory Suit No. 5/2001. Aggrieved with the same, the appellant preferred Review Pet. No. 5/2010 before the same Court, which however was dismissed vide Judgment & Order dated 30.11.2011. The appellant thereafter approached this Court by filing CRP No. 7/2012, which again was dismissed vide Order dated 24.04.2012. 4. Aggrieved with the same, the appellant preferred Review Pet. No. 5/2010 before the same Court, which however was dismissed vide Judgment & Order dated 30.11.2011. The appellant thereafter approached this Court by filing CRP No. 7/2012, which again was dismissed vide Order dated 24.04.2012. 4. Subsequently, the instant respondent filed Eviction Suit No. 6/2014 before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl for demolition of the erection/construction made by the instant appellant, within his LSC and to evict him accordingly. The Eviction Suit was decided on contest vide the impugned Judgment & Order dated 30.01.2023 in favour of the respondent who was the plaintiff. Aggrieved, the instant appellant who was the defendant in the Eviction Suit has filed the instant appeal. 5. Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Eviction Suit was primarily and mainly decided on the basis of the spot verification conducted by the Surveyor concerned and in the absence of the appellant who was absent on account of the COVID-19. The Surveyor was neither examined before the learned Trial Court to prove the report he had submitted and that the appellant has also been deprived of a chance to cross-examine the said Surveyor. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, (2010) 4 SCC 491 . Referring to the said decision, the learned counsel submits that it is a settled law that not only the documents produced before the Court but the contents of the documents are to be proved in accordance with law so as to rely upon the same in favour of the party who has produced the document. In the present case, the same is lacking and therefore, the impugned Judgment & Order cannot be sustained and should be set aside. 6. Mr. B Lalramenga, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, by referring to the Judgment & Order of the Lower Appellate Court in RFA No. 21/2006 submits that the Lower Appellate Court had clearly come to a finding that the instant appellant had occupied land beyond what was covered by his LSC. The said finding was on the basis of evidence available on record. The said finding was on the basis of evidence available on record. This apart, the learned Trial Court had also made an inspection of the disputed portion of the land by personally going to the spot in terms of Order 18, Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Therefore, on the basis of such evidence available, the learned Trial Court passed the Judgment & Order directing the eviction of the unauthorized construction made by the appellant over the land of the respondent. In support of his submission, that on the spot inspection of the Court is permissible and can be relied upon by the Court he refers to the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in President, Bharat Sevashram Sangha vs. Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya & Ors. 2013 (3) GLR 586. Referring to the said decision, the learned counsel submits that it was held by the Court that inspection of the Court under Order 18, Rule 18 CPC is permissible when there are evidence on record. In the instant case, the respondent/plaintiff examined three witnesses including herself while the defendant/appellant examined himself as a lone defendant witness. Therefore, the spot inspection made by the learned Trial Court and the ultimate finding arrived at is only sustainable. 7. I have heard the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. 8. Having regard to the specific stand taken by the appellant that he was not a party to the spot inspection and also he has been deprived of a chance to examine and cross-examine the Surveyor concerned who conducted the spot verification and at the same time, having regard to the fact that the conclusion and decision arrived at by the learned Trial Court admittedly is on the basis of the spot verification done by the Department of Land Revenue & Settlement, I am of the considered view that merely exhibiting the spot verification report would not suffice to hold that the respondent plaintiff is entitled to the prayer of eviction made by her before the Trial Court requiring the appellant to demolish the already constructed structures. Having come to such a finding, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case for remanding the matter back to the learned Court below for consideration of the evidence led by the parties once again. Having come to such a finding, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case for remanding the matter back to the learned Court below for consideration of the evidence led by the parties once again. Since the appellant clearly was not present at the time of spot verification done by the Surveyor concerned as can be seen from the Surveyor report itself, it would be in the interest to the parties and for the ends of justice that a fresh spot verification be ordered to be conducted by the Department concerned in the presence of the parties concerned as well as the representatives of the Village Council/Local Council concerned. The direction for having a spot verification as stated herein above should be made by the learned Trial Court on the appearance of the rival parties concerned before it. The impugned Judgment & Order dated 30.01.2023 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Trial Court for consideration as observed herein above. Since the parties are represented today, they are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 11th November, 2024 alongwith the certified copy of this Order, whereafter the learned Trial Court shall proceed with the matter as observed and directed herein above. Since the matter pertains to the year 2014, the learned Trial Court shall make all the endeavors to expeditiously dispose of the Suit. 9. With the observation and direction, the Appeal stands disposed of as allowed.