2025:HHC:23855 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.54 of 2025 Decided on: 23.07.2025 Godavari Bhardwaj & another … Petitioners Versus Jeewan Singh & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioners : Mr. Vikram Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Y. Paul, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the of Local appointment Commissioner of Randhir Singh in Case No. 13-K/10 of 2020 by the Ld. Civil Judge. Kandaghat, District Solan. Himachal Pradesh; (ii) That the Court of Ld. Civil Judge, Kandaghat, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh be directed to re-appoint a Local Commissioner in Case No. 13-K/10 of 2010 by affording an opportunity to the petitioners to submit their choice of the revenue official.” 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 05.10.2024, in terms whereof, learned Executing Court appointed Shri Randhir Singh, Field Kanungo, as Local Commissioner to inspect the site to ascertain as to whether the decree passed in favour of the petitioners stood executed in letter and spirit or not. According to the petitioners, the Local Commissioner appointed was biased against the petitioners for reasons spelled out in the petition, which are 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:23855 strongly refuted by learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. Having gone through the order that was passed by learned Executing Court on 05.10.2024, this Court finds that the order was passed in the presence of learned counsel for the petitioners and tone and tanner of the order is that it was a consent order passed by the learned Executing Court. If the petitioners were indeed aggrieved by the passing of this order and appointment of Shri Randhir Singh, Field Kanungo at Local Commissioner, nothing prevented the petitioners from either seeking a review of the said order or assailing it, by the next date as fixed in the said order before the appropriate Court. This was not done by the petitioners. Record demonstrates that in compliance to the order that was passed by the learned Executing Court, the Local Commissioner visited the site but therein the parties did not cooperate with him and as a result thereof inspection could not be carried out. 4. In this backdrop, all that this Court can observe is this that it appears that filing of this petition is nothing, but an afterthought as far as the petitioners are concerned. However, taking into consideration the fact that in terms of the order that was passed by the Court on 04.12.2024, as it is evident that the inspection of the spot could not be carried out for the reasons spelled out in the order, as agreed by the parties, this petition is disposed of with the direction that now the site shall be inspected by the Tehsildar, Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. in the presence of the parties and Tehsildar shall submit his report to the learned Executing Court as 3 2025:HHC:23855 to what is the spot situation and the learned Executing Court shall thereafter proceed in the matter in accordance with the report of the said Tehsildar. It is directed that both the parties shall fully cooperate with the Tehsildar in the carrying out of the inspection and in case any of the parties does not renders full cooperation it shall be construed to be a contempt of the orders passed by the Court. Either of the parties shall be at liberty to inform the Tehsildar concerned of the order passed by the Court today, who thereafter shall ensure that this order is complied with on or before 31.08.2025. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 23, 2025 (Rishi)