IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.326 of 2011 Date of decision : September 9, 2011 Hans Raj …Petitioner. Versus Ishwar Chand …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. N.S. Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondent : None. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Respondent filed a suit for partition of a shop, measuring 6.6 Sq. metres, situated in Chamba Town. The suit was against the present petitioner, who was impleaded as defendant. Suit was decreed and a preliminary decree, declaring that plaintiff-respondent was entitled to 2/3rd share in the shop, was passed. Thereafter, request was made for appointment of a Local Commissioner. Tehsildar, Chamba, was appointed as Local Commissioner (by name), vide order dated 17th March, 2011, Annexure P-5, in the presence of the parties or their counsel. Tehsildar, who had been appointed as Local Commissioner, was transferred out and, therefore, his successor was appointed as new Local Commissioner. The said Local Commissioner, visited spot, after issuing notices to the parties and submitted report, with regard Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… to the partition of the shop, by metes and bounds. Copy of the report is Annexure P-6. 2. Petitioner/JD filed objections to the aforesaid report of the Tehsildar, alleging that he was not present on the spot nor had he been issued any notice, with regard to the visit of the Local Commissioner and that the Local Commissioner, besides partitioning the shop, with regard to which preliminary decree was passed, also partitioned the vacant site, serving as front yard of the shop. Those objections have been dismissed by the Executing Court, vide order dated 7th July, 2011, copy Annexure P-8. So, the petitioner has approached this Court, by means of this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order Annexure P-8. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had appointed his son as his attorney and that son of the petitioner was present, at the time when the Local Commissioner visited the spot and carried out the partition, by metes and bounds. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that the Local Commissioner visited the spot, behind his back. 5. As regards the second point raised in the petition, viz. the Local Commissioner had partitioned the vacant site also, for which there was no decree, I have …3… gone through the judgment of the trial Court as also the decree sheet, copies of which have been made available today and which have been taken on record. Relief claimed by the respondent was only with respect to the shop measuring 6.6 Sq. metres and not the vacant site, lying in front of the shop. Preliminary decree was also only for the shop and not for the vacant site. 6. In view of the abovestated position, present petition is allowed, only to the extent that the partition carried out by the Local Commissioner, vide report Annexure P-6, shall be given effect by the Executing Court only in respect of the shop and the report, with regard to the vacant site, lying in front of the shop, shall be ignored. Petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. September 9, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J