CMPMO 660 of 2008. 26.11.2008 Present: Mr. Rupinder Singh, counsel for the petitioner. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the learned District Judge appointing local commissioner to report about the condition of the building etc. The respondent had moved an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure complaining that despite the stay orders passed on 19.9.2007, the petitioner herein was willfully disobeying the order and has been carrying on construction work etc. on the suit premises. On 19.9.2007, Shri M.K.Jain, Advocate was appointed as Local Commissioner who submitted his report on 22.10.2007 pointing out therein the changes in construction etc. which has been made. Another application has now been moved with a request to have the condition of the premises inspected. The application after due consideration was allowed. -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court has acted beyond its jurisdiction in passing the order. He submits that after the first appointment having been made, it was not open to Court to appoint second Commissioner. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I do not find any merit in the submissions made by him. The learned Court below has considered the case in its entirety. Needless to say that mere preparing of the report or placing it on record of the case will not perse render the petitioner herein liable for disobedience of the order of the Court. The petitioner will not only have adequate and ample opportunity to test the veracity of the report by cross examining the Commissioner, but also to lead evidence to show that what the report states is not correct. There is thus no merit in this petition which is dismissed. Pending applications shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. November 26, 2008 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.