CMPMO 195 of 2008. 13.8.2008 Present: Mr. Ashok Sood, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. G.D.Verma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. B.C.Verma, counsel for the respondent. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the application under Order 26 Rule 9 and Order 18 Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff praying for appointment of local commissioner and a prayer that the Court should inspect the spot. The learned Court, on consideration of the facts, has held that there is no dispute regarding the fact that the Court can appoint a local commissioner either suo motu or on the application filed by a party as held by this Court in Bali Ram v. Mela Ram and another, 2002 (3) Shim. L.C. 131. However, the Court holds that granting the prayer would amount to reviewing its order which has been passed earlier and no grounds for review were made out. That order having attained finality cannot be reopened as no ground for review has been made out. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. At this stage, all that need be -2- observed is that it would be open to the petitioners to have the land demarcated in accordance with law and to prove encroachment etc. or other fact situation on the spot by leading evidence. In case it is felt at a later stage that circumstances have changed requiring the appointment of a Commissioner, such request shall be considered by the learned trial Court on its own merits. This petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of. August 13, 2008 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.