IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.674 of 2009 Decided on : July 16, 2010 Keshav Singh …Petitioner Versus Vijay Singh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J. (Oral) Present petition, by the defendant, in a suit pending in the trial Court, is directed against the order, dated 27.8.2009, of the trial Court, by which petitioner’s application, for appointment of Local commissioner, has been dismissed. 2. Respondent has filed a suit for possession of land bearing Khasra No.1245. Petitioner-defendant has pleaded that he has acquired titled to Khasra No.1245 by prescription. In the written statement, it is stated that there stand some mango trees, which were planted by the petitioner-defendant, more than 12 years, prior to the institution of suit and that the fact can be ascertained by sending a Local Commissioner. 3. Parties went to trial, led their evidence and it was thereafter that the petitioner-defendant moved formal application for appointment of Local Commissioner. Application has been dismissed, on the grounds that it has been filed late, it is vague and …2… in case Local Commissioner is appointed, it would lead to introduction of new evidence. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Petitioner’s plea, as per application for appointment of Local Commissioner, is that in the year 1981, he planted mango trees on his own land, bearing Khasra No.1246, which is adjacent to suit land, bearing Khasra No.1245 and that at that very time, mango trees were planted by him on Khasra No.1245 also and the fact can be verified by appointing some expert in horticulture, with a direction to report about the age of mango trees, standing on two Khasra numbers. It is also stated that respondent-plaintiff also planted mango trees on his another piece of land, bearing Khasra No.1244, but those trees were planted long after 1981 and the Local commissioner may be asked to report about the age of those plants also, which would demonstrate that plants of Khasra No.1245, i.e. the suit land, had been planted much before the plantation of trees on Khasra No.1244, the other number, belonging to the respondent-plaintiff. 6. Reasons given by the trial Court for rejecting the application are not sufficient to reject the request, because report of the expert in horticulture would certainly help the Court in appreciating the evidence of the parties, with regard to the plea of adverse possession, as raised by the petitioner-defendant. 7. In view of the above stated position, petition is allowed. Order dated 27.8.2009 of the trial Court is set aside and application of the petitioner-defendant is allowed. Trial Court shall appoint some expert in horticulture, working in Horticulture Department in …3… Kangra District, where the property is situate, to execute the commission. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 11th August, 2010. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. CMP No.1043/2009 In view of the disposal of the main petition, interim stay order dated 16.12.2009, stands vacated. Application stands disposed of. July 16, 2010 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J