2025:HHC:21865 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 21 of 2025 Date of decision 09.07.2025. Jarnail Singh @ Ricky & another ...Petitioners. Versus Om Parkash & others ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Rajneesh K. Lal, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Madhurika Shikhon, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (oral): Aggrieved against the order dated 13.1.2025, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Amb, petitioners have filed the instant petition. 2. By the impugned order, the learned trial Court has dismissed the objections of the petitioners to the report of Local Commissioner. 3. The petitioners herein are defendants No. 4 and 6 respectively in a suit filed by respondent No.1 herein before the learned trial Court. 4. During the pendency of the suit, a Local Commissioner was appointed in terms of orders passed by 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- this Court on 2.5.2024 in Civil Revision No. 99 of 2023. The Tehsildar Ghanari, District Una as a Local Commissioner demarcated the suit land and submitted his report to the learned trial Court. 5. Defendants No. 4 and 6 (petitioners herein) filed their objections to the demarcation report by alleging that the demarcation was not conducted in accordance with rules and the instructions issued in that behalf by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Himachal Pradesh. It was prayed that the Local Commissioner be called for cross-examination by the objectors in the interest of justice. 6. Learned trial Court without calling the Local Commissioner as a witness for being subjected to cross- examination by the objectors, proceeded to pass the impugned order and rejected the objections filed by defendants No. 4 and 6. 7. What has weighed with the learned trial Court is that since defendant No.6 was present at spot, the demarcation could not be discarded. It has also been held -3- that the objectors had failed to show as to why the demarcation was not correct. 8. The statutory provision in Order 26 Rule 10(2) of the CPC provides that the report of Local Commissioner and evidence taken by him shall be the evidence in the suit and shall form part of the record, however, with permission of the Court any of the parties to the suit may examine the commissioner personally in the Court touching any of the matter referred to him. Thus, in case a party to the suit seeks indulgence for examining the Local Commissioner in open Court with respect to the matters touching the investigation conducted by him, it is incumbent upon the Court to provide such opportunity to the parties. 9. As noticed above, though the objectors had made a specific prayer to cross-examine the Local Commissioner but without considering the request of the objectors as also the basic provisions enshrined in Order 26 Rule 10 (2) of the Code the order has been passed. 10. In result, the impugned order cannot be sustained being against law. Accordingly, order dated 13.1.2025, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court -4- No.1, Amb is set aside. The learned trial Court is directed to call the Local Commissioner as witness for the purpose of cross-examination by the objectors and thereafter decide the objections afresh in accordance with law. 10. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) 9th July, 2025 Judge (kck)