IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No.649 of 2008 Reserved on : 5.11.2009. Date of decision : 7.11.2009. Sufal Kumar Sood and others …Petitioners. Versus Varinder Lal Sood and others . …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? Yes For the Petitioners : Mr. S.R.Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ashok Sood, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge This petition has been filed against the order dated 10.7.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, Shimla in Civil Suit No. 63/1 of 2004/1988. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the court below has not decided the objections dated 24.7.2007 Annexure P-12 filed by the defendants No. 1 to 4 against the expert opinion. The trial Court has fixed the case for final arguments. The precise submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that order dated 10.7.2008 ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 Annexure P-15 may be set-aside and the trial Court may be directed to decide the objections dated 24.7.2007 before final arguments in the suit. In support of his submissions the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied Mst. Rattani and others Vs. Dharam Chand alias Dharman and others, 1999 (3) SLC, 443. 2. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the trial Court is very much competent to hear the objections dated 24.7.2007 at the time of final arguments. He has submitted that it is not necessary for the trial Court to hear the arguments on objections in the first instance and then to hear the final arguments lateron. The learned counsel for the respondents has relied Bhumi Chand Vs. Braham Dass and another Latest HLJ 2000 (HP) 188 and Ditar Singh Vs. Waryam Singh Latest HLJ 2003 (HP) 131. The learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the petition. 3. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. In Mst. Rattani (supra), it is clear from para 18 of the report that the courts below had put reliance on the report of the Local Commissioner without disposing of and deciding the objections preferred thereto by the defendants. On those facts, a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that report of the Local Commissioner cannot be relied upon and treated as evidence under Order 26, Rule 10(2), Code of Civil Procedure without first deciding the objections made thereto by a party. In Bhumi Chand (supra) it has been held that even if objections are filed to the report of the Local Commissioner, the duty of the Court is to take evidence in the suit itself. Such evidence may also relate to matters covered by the report 3 of the Commissioner. It is only after considering the entire evidence on record with respect to the merits of the suit and the issues arising therein, the Court can come to the conclusion whether report of the commissioner is correct and whether any relief can be granted to the concerned parties in such a proceeding. If the correctness of the report of the Local Commissioner is alone considered at an interlocutory stage that will lead to grave injustice and will also be against the procedure prescribed in law. No such procedure is contemplated by the Code of Civil Procedure. After the report of the Commissioner is filed it is open to the parties whenever they challenge the report of the Commissioner, to call the commissioner for cross-examination and cross-examine him. In such a situation, it is not open to the Court to give a separate finding at a stage prior to the conclusion of the trial. 4. In Ditar Singh (supra) , a Division Bench of this Court has noticed Mst. Rattani and approved the legal proposition held in Mst. Rattani and further held that it does not mean that the objections cannot be decided simultaneously with the suit in the same judgment. In other words, the objections to the report can be considered at the time of hearing of the main matter 5. In the present case, the order dated 10.7.2008 Annexure P-15 passed by the trial Court is as follows :- “ Time prayed for arguments by the parties as they have not procured the statement of witnesses. Request allowed. To come for arguments on 23.8.2008. Sd/- Civil Judge Senior Division, Court No. (1), Shimla.” 4 The order does not indicate that the trial Court had declined to consider the objections at the time of final arguments. In view of Bhumi Chand and Ditar Singh (Supra), the objections can be heard at the time of final hearing. There is no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed with costs quantified Rs. 2000/-. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 30.11.2009. The Registry is directed to return the record of the trial Court so as to reach before the date fixed. November 7, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ), (GR) Judge.