IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 89 of 2018 Decided on: 30.04.2025 ____________________________________________________ Pyashu Ram ……….. petitioner Versus Brij Lal and another ……….respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Pranjal Munjal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been filed seeking the following relief:- “It is, therefore, prayed that after calling for the record of the Trial Court, the impugned Order Annexure P-4 may be ordered to be quashed and set aside with a further direction to the Trial Court to set aside the report submitted the Local Commissioner and call upon the Local Commissioner to resubmit the report over the point in controversy complete in all respects”. 2. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings appended alongwith the present petition. 3. The petitioner in the case at hand had filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 and under Order 18 Rule 18 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said application had been dismissed by the trial Court on 12.04.2017. Feeling aggrieved thereof, the present petitioner had preferred a CMPMO bearing No. 177 of 2017. The same was decided on 28.06.2017. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 4. By virtue of the judgment passed in CMPMO No. 177 of 2017 dated 28.06.2017, order dated 12.04.2017 passed by the trial Court rejecting the application under Order 26 Rule 9 and Order 18 Rule 18 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been quashed and set aside. The relevant extract is being reproduced here-in-below:- “Coming to the facts of the present case but obvious appointment of Local Commissioner would assist the Court in the process of adjudicating the matter as the report would elucidate the fact as to where actually the wall stands constructed by the Municipal Council”. 5. In order to ascertain as to where the wall constructed by the Municipal Council actually stood, Tehsildar Rohru was appointed as a Local Commissioner. The local commissioner visited the spot on 29.07.2017. At the said visit, the Local Commissioner was requested to verify the fact as to where the wall constructed by the Municipal Council existed. However, the Local Commissioner refused to verify the said fact, as according to him, the Court had only directed him to conduct the demarcation only. 6. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, an application was filed before the trial Court seeking setting aside of the report of the Local Commissioner and issuing a revised/modified reference, whereby the Local Commissioner could be directed to ascertain the factual position qua the existence of the wall constructed by the Municipal Council at the spot. 7. The application so filed was dismissed on 07.12.2017. Feeling aggrieved thereof, the present petition has been preferred. A 3 reading of the judgment dated 26.06.2017 passed in CMPMO No. 177 of 2017 makes it evident that the sole purpose of appointing the Local Commissioner, in the case at hand, was to elucidate the fact as to where actually the wall stands constructed by the Municipal Council. The trial Court judgment shows a complete non-application of mind. A direction to appoint a Local Commissioner has been done in a mechanical manner without ascertaining the purpose as to why the Commissioner had been appointed. 8. In view thereof, the report submitted by the Local Commissioner shall not be taken into consideration. A fresh reference shall be issued to the Tehsildar Rohru (Local Commissioner) to visit the spot and to file his report with respect to where actually the wall constructed by the Municipal Council stands. The same be done by associating both the parties at the spot within a period of eight weeks from today. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 07.12.2024 is quashed and set aside. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 15.05.2025. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge April 30, 2025 tarun