CMPMO No. 284 of 2011. 22.11.2011 Present: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate, for the respondents. The petitioner complains of breach of interim order issued by the learned trial Court in his favour which is sought to be enforced subsequently by way of an application under Order 39, Rules 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. After settling issues, application was dismissed by the learned trial Court and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned District judge. 2. I need not go into the details of the case, the learned District Judge considering the evidence on record holds that (a) the only way to prove the encroachment was to get the land demarcated by resorting the provisions of Order 26, Rule 9, CPC (b) that the evidence of the witnesses on record seems to suggest that the construction in fact was carried out by the Gram Sabha and not by the respondents. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the report of the local commissioner Annexure P-3 annexed with the petition which according to the learned counsel, conclusively established the complicity of the respondent and as evidence of the violation of the interim order granted in favour of the petitioner. What I find is that this report is not proved on record in accordance with law. This is precisely what the learned District Judge has observed in his order. In these circumstances, I find that there is no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. (Dev Darshan Sud),J. November 22, 2011. (jai)