IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.495 of 2008. Date of decision: 26.2.2011. Balbir Singh …..Petitioner. Versus Dhani Ram and others …..Respondents. Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Advocate. For the respondent No.1: Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral) The present petition has arisen out of the order passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, Hamirpur, dated 21.6.2008, vide which he had rejected the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff before the trial Court for appointment of Local Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9, CPC. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 3. The trial Court has observed that in the statement made in the Court, applicant has admitted that numbers of demarcation were carried out and boundaries were affixed. The copy of demarcation as per the observations made are also on the file, therefore, the application was rejected by the learned trial Court. 4. Plaintiff filed a suit for Permanent Prohibitory Injunction and once the plaintiff filed a suit for Permanent Prohibitory Injunction and there is a dispute with regard to the boundary, it is for the plaintiff to ascertain the boundary of his own land and seek relief of Permanent 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. Prohibitory Injunction, that appears to have been done once the plaintiff himself alleged in para 3 of the plaint that he had got the suit land demarcated several times from the competent authority. The plaintiff is required to prove his own case and it is for him to seek demarcation report from the competent Revenue Officer. It is not for the Court to appoint a Local Commissioner to create evidence and then decide the case. In the alternative, plaintiff had also prayed that the defendants had started construction work and have collected the material. In case, any allegations were made in the application for appointment of Local Commissioner that during the pendency of the case, the defendants have encroached upon the suit land or part of it, there was necessity to appoint a Local Commissioner as prayed for by the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff himself in the application filed under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC has not alleged that the defendants have encroached upon the suit land during the pendency of the case and as such, no case was made out for appointment of Local Commissioner. The impugned order suffers from no illegality and as such is affirmed. Further, plaintiff is at liberty to file an application to seek demarcation from a Revenue Officer during the trial of the case and prove it in Court in his evidence. 5. With these observations, the present petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. Parties through their counsel are directed to put in appearance before the learned trial Court on 25th March, 2011. The record of this case along with copy of the order be sent to learned trial Court. The Revenue Officer shall fix a short date for demarcation, in case the application is filed before the Revenue Officer, it shall be expeditiously disposed of. ( V.K. Ahuja ), Judge February 26, 2011 cs