IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.359 of 2011 Date of decision : November 3, 2011 Biasan Devi …Petitioner. Versus Baldev Singh and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Pawan Gautam, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Inder Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, for respondent No.3. Mr. Bhim Raj Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.4 & 5. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner has challenged, by means of the present petition, order dated 14th June, 2011, Annexure P-1, passed by Divisional Commissioner, whereby appeal of the petitioner against an order of Sub Divisional Collector, has been dismissed. The order was passed in the absence of the petitioner and the opposite party. Order purports to have been passed on merits, but in fact merits have not been touched. 3. The order does not touch the merits of the case. Divisional Commissioner has not given any reason, Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… in his order Annexure P-1, for dismissing the appeal. What is stated by him in the order is that he has perused the record and finds that no proper evidence had been recorded, with respect to the plea of Will and so the order passed by the Sub Divisional Collector, remanding the case to the Assistant Collector, calls for no interference. Divisional Commissioner having not indicated in his order as to what was the impropriety in recording the evidence, relating to Will, the order cannot be said to have been passed on merits. 4. For the foregoing reasons, present petition is allowed and the order of dismissal of appeal set aside. Divisional Commissioner is directed to decide the appeal, on merits, after hearing the parties. Pending application also stands disposed of. November 3, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J