2026:HHC:26003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 176 of 2025 Date of decision: 30.06.2026. Yogesh Kumar ...Petitioner. Versus Piar Singh & others ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Malay Kaushal, Advocate, for respondents No. 1, 3 to 6. Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral): The instant petition arises out of the impugned order as passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P. dated 03. 11.2025, whereby application filed by the respondents/defendants under Order 39 Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC for appointment of Local Commissioner came to be allowed. 2. The facts as emerge in the present case are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction before the learned Civil Judge, Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P., restraining the defendants from causing any type of interference by way of changing the nature, cutting trees, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- digging the suit land and raising any construction over any part of the suit land measuring 22-04 bighas, comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No. 18/21 to 23 min, khasra No. 280/74, 278/74 and 279/74, situated at Village Kaseh, Pargana Gehrwin, Tehsil Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P. It was averred in the plaint that the defendants are strangers to the suit land and have got no right, title or interest upon any part of the suit land. On 10.05.2024, the defendants entered into the suit land with the strangers and started cutting the grass from disputed boundary for which, the defendants have no right, title or interest. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and in alternative, decree for possession by demolishing the construction, if any, raised by the defendants over the suit land during the pendency of the suit. 3. The suit was contested by the respondents/ defendants by refuting and denying all the averments as made in the plaint. Apart from filing the written statement, the defendants also filed counter claim and the same is still pending before the learned trial Court. 4. During the pendency of the suit and counter claim, the respondents/defendants filed an application under Order 39 Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC for appointment of a Local -3- Commissioner. It was averred in the application that the Local Commissioner deserves to be appointed to collect full information about the nature of the path/passage which is being used by the defendants to their houses and the same has been blocked by the plaintiff and any other alternative path has been damaged by the plaintiff. 5. The said application came to be resisted by the petitioner/plaintiff by filing reply to the same. The learned trial Court vide its impugned order dated 03.11.2025 allowed the application filed by the respondents/defendants by appointing Sh. Vijay Sharma, Advocate as Local Commissioner to visit the spot to ascertain the existing nature of the path/passage which is being used by the defendants to their houses and whether the same has been blocked by the plaintiff and any other alternative path has been damaged by the plaintiff. 6. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner/plaintiff has approached this Court by filing the instant petition. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order as passed by the learned trial Court is wrong and erroneous and liable to be quashed and set aside. He submits that the learned trial Court has not assigned any reason while allowing the application filed by the respondents/defendants. Further, he submits that the learned -4- trial Court while allowing the application virtually touched the merits of the case, which shall be prejudicial to the rights of the plaintiff. Therefore, after accepting the present petition, the application filed by the defendants under Order 39 Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC, deserves to be rejected. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents has defended the impugned order. He would submit that the learned trial Court has rightly passed a well reasoned order, which does not call for any interference by this Court. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file. 10. Perusal of the impugned order, which has been passed by the learned trial Court reveals that while accepting the contention of the respondents and while allowing the application, the learned trial Court has not touched the pleadings of the application and the reply and contention raised by the petitioner/plaintiff and without assigning any reason, in slipshod manner, the prayer of the respondents has been allowed. 11. This Court is in agreement with the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that before passing any order, it was incumbent upon the learned trial Court to assign reasons to allow the application and in absence of doing so, -5- great prejudice has been caused to the petitioner/plaintiff. This Court is also in agreement with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that in the operative part of para-5 of the impugned order, the learned trial Court has touched the merits of the case, which is not sustainable. 12. Without touching the merits of the case, on the sole ground that since no reason has been assigned for allowing the application of the respondents, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside, by remitting the matter to the Court of learned Civil Judge, Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P. and by restoring the application filed under Order 39 Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC with direction to the learned trial Court to decide the application afresh, strictly in terms of the pleadings as made by the parties, after affording opportunity of being heard to the learned counsel for the parties. Ordered accordingly. 13. The parties undertake to appear before the learned Civil Judge, Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P. on 14.07.2026. Thereafter, the learned trial Court shall make an endeavour to decide the application expeditiously. 14. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. -6- (Romesh Verma) Judge 30th June, 2026. (kck)