( 2025:HHC:7964 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 524 of 2024. Decided on : 27 th March, 2025. Lal Chand & Anr. ...Petitioners. Versus Shetu Ram (deceased) through LRs. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pranjal Munjal, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Reeta Goswami, Senior Advocate with Ms. Rekha Kumari, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral). Heard. 2. By way of instant petition, order dated 07.08.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge, Ani, District Kullu, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 15 of 2020 has been assailed. 3. Petitioners herein are the defendants before the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No.15 of 2020. The suit has been filed by the respondents (plaintiffs) for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction with respect to the land comprised in Khewat Khatoni No. 356/389, Khasra No.2800, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? situated in Village Darot, Phati Shilly, Kothi Janja, Tehsil Anni, District Kullu, H.P. (for short “suit land”). It is alleged that the defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit land and still they were trying to interfere in the same by raising construction. 4. Defendants are contesting the suit by denying the allegations that they are raising construction on Khasra No. 2800. They have set up a specific plea that the land comprised in Khasra No. 637 of the same revenue village owned by them and whatever construction they were raising was on their own land. 5. One of the averments made in the plaint is that the plaintiffs prior to the filing of the suit had applied for demarcation of the land comprised in Khasra No.2800 but due to resistance shown by the defendant it could not be demarcated. 6. During the pendency of the suit, the land was demarcated on the application of the plaintiff and report was submitted by the Kanungo on 24.11.2020. Thereafter, another demarcation was conducted by the Assistant …2… ( 2025:HHC:7964 ) Collector 2nd Grade, Anni and fresh report was prepared on 08.02.2022 and final orders in the case were passed on 10.02.2022. 7. In the above backdrop, the defendants filed an application under Order 26, Rule 9 of the CPC before the learned trial Court for appointment of Local Commissioner to demarcate the suit land. It was averred that the demarcation reports obtained by the plaintiffs were contradictory to each other and for such reason a fresh demarcation was required to be conducted. 8. The plaintiffs contested the prayer. The learned trial Court vide impugned order dismissed the application by holding that firstly defendants had separate right to assail the demarcation report before the appropriate Appellate forum under the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act and secondly, since the demarcation had already been conducted and its report was available as piece of evidence, there was no necessity for the Court to appoint the Local Commissioner for creation of evidence in favour of a party. Learned trial Court …3… ( 2025:HHC:7964 ) further held that the successive demarcation cannot be ordered on the whims and fences of the party. 9. Undisputably, demarcation of suit land has already been conducted more than once. The reports have been prepared. The plaintiffs, if relies upon such reports, will have to prove them in accordance with law. The suit is still at the stage of plaintiffs’ evidence. Plaintiffs, if so choose, can lead evidence to prove the demarcation reports already rendered by the revenue officers. Such pieces of evidence if brought on record will definitely be subject to judicial scrutiny. Thus, it was premature stage for the defendants to have sought another demarcation of the suit land by appointment of Local Commissioner. 10. Learned trial Court is right in observing that the demarcation or Local Commissioner cannot be ordered in routine as the Court has to satisfy itself regarding such requirement at appropriate stage of the case. That being so, no fault can be found with the impugned order. 11. In result, the petition is dismissed. However, it is clarified that the dismissal of the application of the …4… ( 2025:HHC:7964 ) defendants for appointment of Local Commissioner or for demarcation of the suit land at this stage will not preclude them from making similar prayer at appropriate stage, if so required and if the prayer is made by the defendants in future, the learned trial Court will adjudicate the same in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 22nd April, 2025. 12. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 27th March, 2025. (jai) …5… ( 2025:HHC:7964 )