2025:HHC:16470 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.192/2019. Date of Decision: 28th May, 2025. Neena Devi .....Petitioner Versus P.N. Bhardwaj ….Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Bhairav Gupta, Advocate, vice Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). Challenge, in the case at hand, has been laid to impugned order dated 11.04.2019, passed by the learned Civil Judge(Jr. Division), Court No.6, Shimla, HP in Civil Suit No.RBT No.56-1 of 2018/16, whereby an application for appointment of Local Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC has been dismissed by the Court below. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings appended along with the present petition. 3. From a perusal of the application, it is evident that in the case at hand, the petitioner is the plaintiff before the trial Court. The plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction against the present respondent. Permanent prohibitory injunction is being sought against the respondent from restraining him from raising any sought of construction over the suit land owned by the plaintiff/petitioner. Mandatory injunction has been sought for 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 2025:HHC:16470 removal of infringing structures alleged to have been raised on the land owned by the petitioner/plaintiff. In the application, it is averred that prior to filing of the suit, a demarcation of the suit land had been got done from the concerned revenue authorities on 29.04.2016. The said demarcation report so obtained stands confirmed by the Assistant Collector Grade-II, Shimla, Urban on 23.05.2016. On the basis of demarcation report boundary marks are stated to have been installed. Further encroachments during the pendency of the suit are stated to have been made by the respondents. Boundary marks are also stated to have been removed. 4. Admittedly, in the case at hand, the matter is listed for recording of the plaintiff’s evidence. 5. Rule 9 of Order 26 of the Civil Procedure Code reads as follows:- “9. Commissions to make local investigations.—In any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the market-value of any property, or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits, the Court may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court: Provided that, where the State Government has made rules as to the persons to whom such commission shall be issued, the Court shall be bound by such rules.” 6. A bare reading of Rule 9 of Order 26 of the Civil Procedure Code clearly indicates that amongst other purposes a local commissioner can be appointed for elucidating any matter 3 2025:HHC:16470 in dispute. The expression “elucidate” means to make lucid or clear, throw light upon, explanation, enlighten. The object of local investigation is not to collect evidence which can be adduced in the Court by the party itself. 7. Only when the court is satisfied on materials available on record that a party is not able to produce required evidence due to certain circumstances, the Court may appoint a Local Commissioner to get such material, which can neither be had from the record nor can be produced by leading oral or documentary evidence. Appointment of a local commissioner cannot be claimed by a party as a matter of right. 8. From perusal of the impugned judgment, it is evident that the Court below, while passing the impugned judgment has perused the record threadbare, proceeded within the prescribed parameters and thereafter after a due application of mind has arrived at a reasonable conclusion. In dismissing the application there is no miscarriage of justice. 9. Moreover, the present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. This Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to interfere under the correctional jurisdiction vested in it in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except to set right a grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice, miscarriage of justice, un-reasonable conclusion and perversity. On the other hand in the supervisory jurisdiction reviewing or re-weighing evidence, 4 2025:HHC:16470 substituting conclusions, correcting every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported is not permissible. (See Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Limited and another, (2003) 3 SCC 524 and Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022) 4 SCC 181). 11. In the case at hand, for the reasons stated herein above, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out in the present petition for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. In view of above terms, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 06.06.2025. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 28th May, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)