IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA 385 of 1999. Decided on July 8, 2010. Suman Lata …Appellant/Defendant. Versus Vinod Kumar & others …..Respondents/Plaintiffs. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Appellant Mr. K.S.Kanwar, Advocate. For the respondents Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Charu Gupta, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral). This regular second appeal by the defendant is directed against judgment and decree, dated 2.8.1999, of learned District Judge, whereby her appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 9.12.1998, of learned Senior Sub Judge, decreeing the suit of the respondents-plaintiffs, has been dismissed. 2. Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether demarcation report Ext. PC, dated 23.9.98, has been misconstrued, misinterpreted and misapplied by two courts below in decreeing Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - the suit of the plaintiffs and rejecting the counter- claim of defendant No. 1, more particularly, when demarcation on the basis of report Ext. PC has been prepared, has not been carried out in accordance with law and instructions? 2. Whether learned Additional District Judge has erred in rejecting the statement of DW-1 on the ground that as special attorney of defendant 1, he cannot appear on behalf of defendant No. 1, for making statement in the Court? 3. Respondents – plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining appellant- defendant from interfering in a vacant portion of Khasra No. 402/92, lying in between the houses of the plaintiffs and the defendant, and also for mandatory injunction for demolishing the structure, if any, which the appellant-defendant might succeed in raising, during the pendency of the suit. It was stated that respondents – plaintiffs were owner in possession of Khasra No. 402/92, while defendant-appellant was owner in possession of Khasra No. 402/94. It was stated that on a portion of Khasra No. 402/92, plaintiffs-respondents had constructed a house and some portion towards Khasra No. 402/94 of the appellant defendant, was lying vacant and beyond that vacant portion, defendant had her house on Khasra No. - 3 - 402/94. It was stated that appellant-defendant had been threatening to make encroachment upon the aforesaid vacant portion of Khasra No. 402/92, by raising construction. 4. Suit was contested by the appellant- defendant and it was stated that vacant portion was part of Khasra No. 402/94, owned and possessed by her. Counter claim was also filed by the appellant- defendant, seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the plaintiffs-respondents from interfering in the aforesaid vacant portion and also for mandatory injunction, directing the respondents- plaintiffs to remove projected portion of roof of their house, extending over the vacant portion, which was claimed to be part of Khasra No. 402/94. 5. Trial Court appointed a retired revenue officer, practising as an Advocate after retirement, as Local Commissioner, for carrying out demarcation at the spot and reporting, whether vacant site was part of Khasra No. 402/92, belonging to respondents-plaintiffs, or part of Khasra No. 402/94, belonging to the appellant-defendant. 6. Local Commissioner’s report alongwith tatima is Ex.PC, per which vacant site, lying between the houses of the parties, was part of Khasra No. 402/92, - 4 - owned and possessed by respondents-plaintiffs. Location of vacant site was indicated in the tatima by Khasra No. 92/1. No objection was raised against the aforesaid report. Learned trial Court, on consideration of the said report and after recording statement of the Local Commissioner, who was called for cross examination by the appellant-defendant, held that vacant site was part of Khasra No. 402/92, and consequently, suit was decreed. Appellant-defendant’s counter claim was dismissed. 7. Appeal was filed by the appellant-defendant in the Court of District Judge, which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree. 8. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 9. Admittedly, no objection was filed against the report of Local Commissioner. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant submits that Local Commissioner did not carry out demarcation, in accordance with procedure laid down in Chapter I –M of Volume 1 of the High Court Rules and Orders, inasmuch as, three permanent points, on three different sides of Khasra No. 402/92, had not been fixed. There is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, because, - 5 - in para 4, Local Commissioner has stated in full detail, which three permanent points on three different sides, and in what manner, had been fixed by him. 10. In view of the above said position, substantial questions of law are answered against the appellant-defendant and the appeal is dismissed. July 8, 2010 (PC). (Surjit Singh), J.