2025:HHC:27582 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.147 of 2025 Decided on: 14.08.2025 Karam Singh & others … Petitioners Versus Tek Chand (deceased) through LRs. Tej Singh & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioners : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed and the order dated 07.01.2025 passed by the Learned Senior Civil Judge, Mandi in Objection No.1/25 in Ex. Petition No.655/2013 may kindly be quashed and set aside after dismissing the objections filed by the respondents and justice be done.” 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 07.01.2025, passed by learned Executing Court, in terms whereof, objections filed by the Decree Holder to the report of the Local Commissioner were accepted and re-demarcation of the land was ordered in light of the observations made in the order. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:27582 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that as the Aks Tatima prepared at the spot (Ext.P-7) clearly demonstrates the existence of four path and as there is no hindrance to any of the paths, this extremely important aspect of the matter has been ignored by the learned Executing Court by accepting the objections filed against the report of the Local Commissioner. Learned Counsel further submitted that there was no infirmity in the report of the Local Commissioner, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. Alternatively, he submitted that in case re-demarcation has to be carried out, then the expenses should be borne by the respondents herein. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents has drawn the attention of the Court to Para-9 of the Order passed by the learned Executing Court and submitted that perusal thereof demonstrates that there were glaring discrepancies in the report of the Local Commissioner, which stand pointed out specifically in this para of the order and therefore, it was in the interest of justice that re-demarcation was ordered by the Court. 5. In rebuttal, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was no direction passed, when the Local Commissioner was appointed that the photographs of the land should be taken and therefore, setting aside the report on the ground that no photographs have been taken is not sustainable. 3 2025:HHC:27582 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the order under challenge as well as other documents appended with the petition. 7. The report of the Local Commissioner which otherwise is not on record was made available by the learned Counsel for the respondents for the perusal of Court. The Local Commissioner was appointed by the learned Court below in terms of order dated 17.05.2024. The Commissioner was appointed to find out whether the path was blocked upon land comprised in khasra No.1562/5, 1562/13 and 1567/2 as mentioned in Tatima Ext.PW1/A, which was made part of the decree. 8. The objections filed by the Decree Holder against the report of the Local Commissioner have been allowed by the learned Executing Court by observing as under:- “Accordingly, silence on their part clearly brings out existence of the path behind their house has been hindered by raising a wall causing a blockage. Even to the human conscience, it is difficult to believe that a path which originated from Khasra No. 1567/2 passing through Khasra No. 1562 suddenly vanish upon Khasra No. 1562/7 and 1562/8 which otherwise is 13 feet wide behind the house of the defendants/JDs and again re- connects in Khasra No. 1562/13. So, the report of the local commissioner in the present case is not reliable one and there is a need to seek the report of the local commissioner specifically with the direction to take the 4 2025:HHC:27582 photographs of the spot as to Khasra No. 1562/7 and 1562/8 and clearly apprise the area over which the path exists and connects Khasra No. 1562/13 on one side and Khasra No. 1562/5 on the other side thereof. There is also need for the further clarity on the point of the obstruction caused by the defendants/JDs for narrowing down this path behind the railing or any other blockage thereof. So, the objection filed by the objectors/DHs are accepted partly and local commissioner is directed to submit his report upon the aforesaid points on the fee already provided to him as there is deficiency in his report and dereliction from the direction given to him urgently specifically and the report thereafter be called from him making the mention that the case pertains to the year 2013 and report in any case be received by this Court by 19.02.2025.” 9. Having perused the contents of Para-9 of the order harmoniously with the report of the Local Commissioner as well as the Aks Tatima, which is on record as Annexure P-7, there appears to be merit in the order that has been passed by the learned Executing Court. 10. As this Court is of the considered view that learned Court below correctly expressed doubts over the correctness of the report of the Local Commissioner and thereafter, ordered fresh demarcation to be carried out, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the said order passed by the learned Executing Court. 11. Therefore, this petition is dismissed. However, in the 5 2025:HHC:27582 interest of justice it is ordered that now let the demarcation be carried out by the Tehsildar of the area concerned rather than the Local Commissioner appointed by the Court and the demarcation be carried out in terms of the observations made by the learned Executing Court in Para-9 of the order under challenge. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 14, 2025 (Rishi)