IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Regular Second Appeal No.251 of 2007. Date of decision:12.09.2008. Balwant Singh …Appellant Versus Hardev Singh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Appellant: Mr.Pawan Gautam, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.Ajay Chandel, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This is the defendant’s appeal against the concurrent findings of the two Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent. The learned trial Court, on a consideration of the evidence on record, passed a decree for possession of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. An appeal was preferred before the learned District Judge which was dismissed. The basic contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant in this case is that the judgments of the Courts below were incorrect as they did not act in accordance with law by placing reliance on the report of the Local 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 Commissioner. All the questions of law urged for consideration in this appeal deal with the acceptance of the report and its legality. The basic contention being that the Local Commissioner could not be cross- examined. The Courts below have noticed that the Local Commissioner has filed a detailed report regarding the demarcation carried out by him. The objections preferred were also dealt with in detail including the basic objection that the Commissioner was not presented for cross-examination. The Courts below noticed that the Local Commissioner was dead on the day when the case came up for consideration on evidence. However, the detail of the report was considered minutely and both the learned Courts below concluded that the demarcation has been conducted in accordance with law and there was no violation of any statutory Rules, Instructions or Order. Moreover, this was not the sole basis for arriving at the conclusions of fact but the report was considered only as a corroborative piece of evidence. No question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for determination of this Court in this case. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of. September 12, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge. 3