IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.357 of 2026 Date of decision:07.08.2026 Roshan Lal & another ...Petitioners Versus Anil Rawat ...Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rohit, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Dinender Panwar, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge (oral): The instant petition arises out of order as passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Solan, H.P., dated 16.03.2026, whereby application filed by the present petitioners/defendants under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC for appointment of local commissioner came to be dismissed. 2. The facts, as emerge in the present case, are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act restraining the defendants from interfering in the suit land, damaging the suit property, fruit Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- bearing trees, drainage, septic tanks etc. and from blocking the path leading to the house of the plaintiff existing over the suit land comprised in Khata/Khatauni Numbers 32/38, Khasra Nos.2838/2817/2411/786, total measuring 238 square meters, situated in Mohal Saproon, Tehsil and District Solan, HP. 3. It has been averred in the plaint that defendant No.1 is the adjoining owner of the land and he, along with his family, has been finding opportunity to harass and humiliate the plaintiff over the suit land. On 28.11.2023, demarcation was conducted on the spot and the defendants and their family members picked up quarrel and claimed a portion of the suit land to be their own. Thereafter, the defendants interfered in the suit land, damaged the fruit-bearing trees of the plaintiff and also threatened to cause damage to the drainage/nali, and the septic tanks (two in number), situated below the house of the plaintiff. The defendants further threatened to damage the house and obstruct the path leading to the house of the plaintiff, which has been in his use since long. The defendants have no right, title, or interest over the suit land. 4. In the last lines of Para-3 of the plaint, it has been mentioned that the demarcation so conducted is not up to the mark, as the same has not been conducted in accordance with the procedure and instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Himachal Pradesh. Therefore, under such circumstances, the -3- plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit land, either by themselves or through their agents, servants, assignees, labourers, contractors, family members, etc. 5. The said suit came to be contested by the defendants by filing written statement. In response to Para-3 of the plaint, the defendants, while filing their reply on merits, stated that the defendants had got their land demarcated on 28.11.2023 and erected pucca boundary pillars on the common boundary. As per the defendants, after the demarcation conducted on 28.11.2023, the plaintiff assured the defendants that he would remove/dismantle the portion of the recently constructed, incomplete septic tank, etc., from the defendants land, bearing Khasra Nos.784 and 785. On the assurance of the plaintiff, the Naksha Tafawat was not prepared by the Field Kanungo on the said date. As per the defendants, surprisingly, instead of complying with the undertaking given before the Revenue Authority, the plaintiff filed the instant suit for permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants by misrepresenting and distorting the true facts. 6. As per learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, prior to the commencement of the trial, the defendant/applicant filed an application for the appointment of Local Commissioner in view of the specific averments made by the plaintiff in the suit. It has been stated -4- in the application that the plaintiff has claimed himself to be in possession of the suit land comprising Khasra Nos. 2838/2817/2411/786, measuring 238 Sq. meters, situated in Mohal Saproon, Tehsil and District Solan, HP. As per the pleadings of the plaintiff and the revenue record, defendant No.1 is co-owner in possession of the adjoining land along with other co-sharers, comprised in Khasra Nos. 784 and 785, situated in Mohal Saproon. As per the defendants, the boundaries of the said three Khasra numbers adjoin each other and there exists a boundary dispute inter se the parties. Therefore, it was averred in the application that the controversy between the parties can be resolved through the demarcation of the land and consequently, the instant application was filed. 7. The application for the appointment of Local Commissioner came to be resisted by filing reply. It has been averred in the reply that the present application filed for the appointment of Local Commissioner is not maintainable in its present form and that the Court cannot collect evidence for the defendants. It was specifically denied that the dispute and controversy between the parties can be easily resolved through a fresh demarcation of the land. Therefore, the plaintiff/respondent prayed for the dismissal of the application filed by the defendants. -5- 8. The learned trial Court, vide its impugned order dated 16.03.2026, dismissed the application on the ground that Local Commissioner cannot be appointed to collect evidence for a particular party or to enable a party to fill up lacuna in its case. 9. Feeling dissatisfied, the defendants/petitioners have instituted the present petition before this Court. 10. It is contended by Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, learned Senior Counsel, duly assisted by Mr.Rohit, learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is erroneous and liable to be set aside. He submits that the record demonstrates that there is a boundary dispute inter se the parties. Therefore, the learned trial Court ought to have appointed a Local Commissioner for demarcating the suit land. He submits that after allowing the present petition, the application filed by the petitioners/defendants for the appointment of Local Commissioner deserves to be allowed. 11. In response to the submissions made by learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Dinender Panwar, learned Counsel for the respondent, has fairly conceded that, in order to adjudicate the matter in controversy, he has no objection if a Revenue Officer is appointed as Local Commissioner. He further submits that some Revenue Officer, not below the rank of Tehsildar, be appointed to demarcate the suit land so that the matter can be put to rest for all times to come. -6- 12. The case file reveals that it is the specific case of the plaintiff, especially in Para-3 of the plaint, wherein the plaintiff has stated as follows: 3…… “The demarcation so conducted is not upto the mark as the same has not been conducted in accordance with the procedure and the instructions as issued by the Financial Commissioner Revenue Himachal Pradesh.” 13. To the said averments and submissions of the plaintiff, there is averment in the written statement filed by the defendants that the land was demarcated on 28.11.2023 and thereafter, the parties erected pucca boundary pillars on the common boundary. It is further the case of the defendants that on the said date, when the demarcation was conducted by the Revenue Officer, the respondent assured on the spot that he would remove/dismantle the portion of the recently constructed, incomplete septic tank from the defendants’ land, bearing Khasra Nos. 784 and 785. However, surprisingly, instead of complying with the said commitment, he filed the instant suit to harass the defendants/petitioners. 14. The learned senior counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the copy of the demarcation report (Annexure P-4), dated 28.11.2023, wherein it has been categorically stated by the Revenue Officer that the plaintiff has encroached upon certain portion of the land belonging to the defendants. However, in the concluding -7- paragraph, it has been mentioned by the Revenue Officer that the parties intend to resolve the issue amongst themselves amicably. 15. Therefore, under these circumstances, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that once there is admittedly a boundary dispute between the parties and the demarcation effected inter se them by the Revenue Officer has been challenged by the plaintiff himself before the competent Court of Law, the plaintiff is not accepting the said findings himself. Therefore, to elucidate the truth, the best possible course is to appoint a Local Commissioner so that the boundaries of the respective parties can be demarcated. 16. Consequently, in view of the averments made in the application, especially the demarcation report (Annexure P-4) appended with the present petition, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is not sustainable in the eye of law. 17. This Court is prima facie of the opinion that there is a boundary dispute between the parties, which can be adjudicated and determined by appointing Local Commissioner and also in view of the fact that there is no objection on behalf of the learned Counsel for the respondent for allowing the application, the present petition is allowed and the application filed by the present petitioners/defendants for the appointment of Local Commissioner is also allowed. 18. Therefore, after setting aside the impugned order dated 16.03.2026 and accepting the application, the parties are relegated to -8- the learned trial Court, which shall pass an order for the appointment of competent Revenue Officer to demarcate the suit land. 19. With these observations, the present petition stands disposed of along with pending application(s), if any. (Romesh Verma) Judge 7th August, 2026. (vt)