IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.44 of 2011. Date of decision: 15.11.2011 Devi Ram … …Petitioner Versus Om Parkash Sahni … …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.Dinesh Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.Praneet Gupta, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This petition has been instituted by the petitioner-defendant herein challenging the order passed by the learned trial Court allowing the application under Order 26 Rule 9 preferred by the respondent-plaintiff. 2. It is undisputed before me that the Commission now stands executed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order passed is illegal and places reliance on the judgment of this Court in Amar Singh vs. Narpat Ram, Latest HLJ 2010 (HP) 532, holding that a Local Commissioner cannot be appointed. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 3. I have gone through the decision. I do not find that the judgment is omnibus bar for appointment of Local Commissioner. It is trite to observe that the report of the Local Commissioner perse does not constitute substantive evidence but has to be proved in accordance with law after having granted an opportunity to the opposite party to contest its correctness or otherwise. 4. In these circumstances, there is no merit in this petition which is accordingly disposed of. November 15, 2011. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.