IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.325 of 2011 Decided on: October 20, 2011 Bhopinder Singh Chandel ..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. N.Ss. Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistnat Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 4. __________________________________________ Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner has filed a suit for injunction and damages, alleging that while constructing a road, respondents threw debris towards the adjoining land of the petitioner, as a result of which a water channel (kuhl) irrigating petitioner’s land got blocked and damaged. Petitioner pleaded that channel had been damaged/blocked by the debris, generated in the course of construction of a road by the respondents. 3. Respondents have taken the plea that debris, which had filled/blocked the channel, was removed in the Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É year 2006-07. Evidence was also led by the respondents on the lines of their aforesaid plea. 4. Petitioner filed an application for appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect the spot and report whether the channel, in question, was blocked by the debris or not. Respondents filed reply in which they took the plea that debris, generated in the course of construction of road, which had filled the channel, had been removed, but later on there were slips due to heavy rains and the muck of those slips had filled/blocked the channel. 5. Aforesaid reply by the respondents amounts to an admission that debris is there in the channel. Local inspection was sought only for the purpose of reporting whether debris is there or not. Local Commissioner cannot give any opinion whether the debris/muck, which is there on the spot now, pertains to slips alleged by the respondents or it is the debris generated at the time of construction of road, as claimed by the petitioner. Therefore, appointment of Local Commissioner will serve no purpose. Consequently, petition is dismissed. October 20, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.