IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 281 of 2009. Decided on September 27, 2010 Arvind Diwan & another ..Appellants. Versus Parma Nand ..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the appellant Sh. Vinay Kuthiala, Advocate. For the respondent Sh. G.D.Verma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. B.C.Verma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 7.3.2009, of learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, whereby, appeal filed by the appellants-plaintiffs, has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel, representing the appellants, submits that the learned first Appellate Court had appointed a local commissioner, who submitted his report, but the same was set aside and thereafter, the local commissioner was directed to Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - submit a fresh report, keeping in mind the observations made in the order, setting aside the earlier report, but, without waiting for fresh report, the appeal has been disposed of. 4. I have gone through the judgment. Learned first appellate Court has held that since the case is very old and targeted, so, he was proceeding to decide it, without waiting for the report. When the first appellate Court had itself felt that report of the local commissioner was required in the matter, for deciding the case effectively and to its satisfaction, it ought not to have decided it, without waiting for the report of the local commissioner. Targets are fixed by the High Court in its supervisory administrative control only. Communications sent by the High Court through its Registry, fixing targets, do not mean that the matters are to be disposed of, in violation of the established procedure for trial of cases, or ignoring the orders earlier passed during the proceedings of the case. Judgment and decree, on the face of it, are illegal. 5. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that there was an application for additional evidence, moved by the appellant on 15.9.2003, but the first appellate Court, without passing any order on that application, finally disposed of the appeal. This is - 3 - again an illegality committed by the first appellate Court. 6. For the foregoing reasons, appeal is accepted, judgment and decree of the first appellate Court are set aside and the case is remanded to the first appellate Court, with the direction to dispose it of according to law and in accordance with the observations made hereinabove. 7. Parties are directed to appear before the first appellate Court on 20.10.2010. September 27, 2010 (PC). (Surjit Singh) Judge.