2025:HHC:9045 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.631 of 2022 Decided on: 03.04.2025 Malber Singh ….Petitioner Versus Gokal Chand ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) Heard. 2. The petitioner has assailed order dated 12th September, 2022, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Kinnaur at Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur, H.P., in Case No.6/2025, whereby the application of the respondent for appointment of Local Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been allowed. 3. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff before learned trial Court and hereinafter they shall be referred by the same status as they hold in the original Court. 4. The plaintiff has filed a suit for possession against the defendant on the allegation that the defendant has encroached 2 upon certain portion of the suit land, which is exclusively owned and possessed by the plaintiff. He placed reliance on a report of demarcation conducted on his application by the revenue officer. 5. At the fag end of the suit, when the parties were to address the arguments, plaintiff filed the application for appointment of Local Commissioner i.e. revenue officer for the purposes of demarcation of suit land. The defendant contested the application, however, vide impugned order, the same has been allowed by learned trial Court. The perusal of impugned order reveals that learned trial Court, while allowing the application of plaintiff, has held that since both the parities have adjoining lands and it being a boundary dispute, the demarcation of suit land by appointment of Local Commissioner will serve the purpose. 6. On 20th March, 2025, this Court had passed the following order: “Heard for some time. There is nothing on record to suggest as to whether the respondent/plaintiff had taken steps to prove the demarcation report relied upon by him at the time of filing of the suit. Learned counsel for both the parties seek time to have instructions.” 3 7. In compliance, today learned counsel for the defendant has submitted that the plaintiff has examined the Kanungo as his witness to prove the demarcation report relied upon by him. Admittedly, till date learned trial Court has made no adjudication as to whether the demarcation relied upon by the plaintiff is valid or not. Since, the said demarcation report is already before learned trial Court, as a piece of evidence, ordering another demarcation to be conducted is not proper. 8. In the application filed by the plaintiff for appointment of Local Commissioner there is an averment that the demarcation already got conducted by him is causing some sort of confusion and misconception. No details have been provided as to how and in what manner, the plaintiff had entertained confusion or misconception. Even otherwise, since the document is before the Court, as a piece of evidence, it is for the Court to decide on its validity and legality. 9. In light of above analysis, impugned order cannot be sustained. In light of existence of one report of demarcation conducted by revenue officer under the provisions of H.P. Land Revenue Act, the same cannot be superseded by another unless set aside or quashed, in accordance with law. 4 10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 12th September, 2022, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Kinnaur at Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur, H.P., is set aside. It is, however, clarified that this order will not come in the way of learned trial Court or the parties, once there is an adjudication on the validity and evidentiary value of the demarcation report already produced on record. 11. The petition is accordingly disposed of, so also the miscellaneous application(s), if any. ( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge April 03, 2025 (vt)