IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Regular Second Appeal No. 414 of 2007. Decided on: July 21, 2008. __________________________________________________ Joginder Singh … Appellant. Versus Lalita Devi and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’bl Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant : Mr. R.P. Singh, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Una on 30.4.2007 in Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2007. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff for convenience sake) had filed a suit for issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from putting or installing any angle irons or barbed wire, raising any construction, taking forcible possession and interfering in any manner over the suit land. The respondents/defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants for convenience sake) had contested the suit. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit on 9.10.2006. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 the learned District Judge, Una. The learned District Judge, Una dismissed the appeal on 30.4.2007. Hence this regular second appeal. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that the judgments rendered by both the Courts below are not sustainable in the eyes of law. He then contended that the report of the Local Commissioner could not be disbelieved and if the Court was not satisfied with this report, a new Local Commissioner could be appointed by the Court. He further contended that since the revenue record of village Lal Singi was not available, his oral evidence should have been considered by the Courts below. I have heard Mr. R.P. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant at length and have gone through the judgments of both the Courts below carefully. The Local Commissioner was appointed by the trial Court on 14.11.2003 directing him to visit the spot and demarcate the suit land. Shri Surjit Singh, retired D.R.O.- Local Commissioner visited the spot and demarcated the land and submitted the report to the Court. The defendants had filed objections to this report. The Local Commissioner has appeared as DW1/A. He has admitted that he had called the Patwari of village Kotla Khurd and village Lal Singi. Mark ‘A’ is photo copy of Aks Musabi which was not certified. He demarcated the land on the basis of photo copy of Aks supplied by the plaintiff. He has admitted that Mark ‘B’ was a photo copy. The demarcation could not be carried out on the basis of photo copy of the revenue record. It was necessary for the Local Commissioner to carry out the demarcation on the basis of authenticated revenue record. The plaintiff has not brought any evidence on record to suggest that any effort was made by him to get the necessary certificate from the revenue agency that the revenue record of village Lal Singi was not available. 3 The findings recorded by both the Courts below are on the basis of correct appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence. There is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Accordingly, the regular second appeal is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. July 21, 2008. (cr)