IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.309 of 2011. Date of decision:14.11.2011. Prem Chand … …Petitioner Versus Rikhi Ram & Others … …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioner: Mr.Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr.Janesh Gupta, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The petitioner has preferred this petition against the order passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur in appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.3, Hamirpur in CMA No.98 of 2011 in CS No.4 of 2011, titled: Prem Chand vs. Rikhi Ram etc. 2. During the pendency of the appeal, Shri Ajay Sharma, Advocate, was appointed as a Local Commissioner and he visited the spot and submitted his report on 23.6.2011. In his report, he had stated that respondent 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 Rikhi Ram has constructed 10 pillars on the spot covering 32 feet front portion on village link road side, whereas, total length of the front portion on village link road side is 110 feet. Village link road is not recorded in the revenue record. Construction material was lying on the spot. He further reported that house of appellant is on the back side of the said construction about 25 feet away. 3. The appellant preferred objections against this report, but the learned trial Court holds that they are not maintainable, in view of the statement made by the appellant at the time of inspection of the suit land by the Local Commissioner, as he did not raise any objection at the time when inspection was conducted. On the facts pleaded by the parties and the report of the Local Commissioner, the learned trial Court dismissed the appeal. The Court also observed that any observation made in the order will not affect the merits of the main case which would be decided by the learned trial Court at a later stage at the time of arguments. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made a number of submissions in support of his contention that the order passed cannot be sustained and it is against law and the factual situation. He submits that the learned court has ignored the fact that the land is not yet partitioned and is jointly owned by the parties and in this event there can be no 3 question of appropriation of the property for construction etc. He also submits that the balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner herein and the respondent cannot be allowed to appropriate the land for his exclusive use at this stage. It would not be appropriate for me to interfere as it is now well settled that any interim order does not settle the entire controversy nor dispose of the case of the parties on merits. It would also be trite to observe that the interim order does not survive the final judgment that is to say that it would become the part of what the final judgment says if that fact is established by law. It is not as if the interim order is the final judgment. This petition is, therefore, disposed of. All interim orders are vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of. November 14, 2011. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.