IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 394 of 2009. Date of decision: 24.5.2010. Rajeev Vatsyayan …..Petitioner. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Vipin Potyaan, Advocate vice Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). The petitioner has filed a suit for possession against the respondent regarding land denoted by letters A, B, C, D shown with red colour in the site plan, which according to petitioner is part of land measuring 0-08-67 square meters comprised in khasra No. 55/2, 56/1, khewat No. 154 min, khatauni No. 245 min, village Ajauli, Tehsil and District Una vide jamabandi for the year 2001-02. 2. The respondent has contested the suit and has taken the plea that suit land denoted by letters A, B, C, D as shown in red colour in the site plan by the petitioner is part and parcel of khasra No. 54 The petitioner in the plaint has alleged that respondent is an utter stranger to the suit property having no right title or interest of any Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… kind either proprietory or possessory and she is owner of adjoining land comprised in khasra No. 54. It appears there is a specific issue whether the site denoted by letters A, B, C, D is part of khasra No. 55/2, 56/1 and onus of this issue is on the petitioner. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a boundary dispute and respondent has taken the plea that land in question is part of khasra No. 54 and not of khasra No. 55/2 and 56/1, therefore, appointment of Local Commissioner is necessary in order to ascertain whether suit land is part of khasra No. 54 or khasra Nos 55/2, 56/1. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied Haryana Waqf Board vs. Shanti Sarup and others (2008) 8 SCC 671. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that it is for the petitioner to prove his case and by appointing Local Commissioner, evidence cannot be created by the court. 4. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The plea of the petitioner right from the very beginning is that suit land is part of khasra No. 55/2, 56/1, whereas the respondent is asserting that suit land is part of khasra No. 54. Both the properties of the petitioner and respondent are adjoining to each other. In these circumstances, it is in the interest of both the parties that Local Commissioner is appointed with a direction to demarcate the land in accordance with law and identify the location of the suit property. The learned Civil Judge has not properly appreciated the matter. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the …3… impugned order is set-aside. The trial court is directed to appoint Local Commissioner in the terms indicated above. CMP No. 382 of 2009. 5. Infructuous in view of orders passed in the main petition. May 24, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.