IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 206 of 2010 Date of decision: 24.11.2010 Rukmi Nand …. Petitioner Versus Amir Chand & ors ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner: Mr.Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Romesh Verma, counsel for respondents No.1,2,4 and 5. _____________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner lays challenge to the order dated 11.6.2010 whereby the learned Trial Court rejected the prayer of the defendant for change of Local Commissioner and further restricted the amount to be paid to the defendant for visiting the residence of witness Ganga Singh to ` 1500/-. 2. The undisputed facts of the case are that an application was moved by the plaintiff to examine 2 Sh.Ganga Singh as a witness who resides in the remote area of Dodra Kawar on commission. From the record, it is apparent that this application was allowed and with the consent of the parties, Sh.J.D.Negi, Advocate was appointed as Local Commissioner to record the statement of Sh.Ganga Singh. Thereafter, defendant filed an application under Order 26 Rule 15, CPC in which the defendant prayed that the plaintiff be directed to deposit `20,000/- for the expenses of visit of the defendant and his counsel to Dodra Kawar. ` 13,000/- was claimed as expenses of the visit of the counsel and `7000/- as expenses of the visit of the defendant. It was also averred that Sh.J.D.Negi, Advocate had represented the family of the plaintiff in a previous suit titled as Rukmi Nand Vs. Birja Nand as vice counsel. 3. In the reply, it was denied that Sh.J.D.Negi was related to the plaintiff or that he belongs to the same area as the plaintiff. It was however stated that in the Civil Suit Sh.Negi might have marked his presence as vice counsel on behalf of his senior Sh.S.N.Sharma, Advocate. There is no record to show that Sh.J.D.Negi is either related to the plaintiff or that he had taking 3 any active part in the previous litigation. Merely marking his presence as vice counsel would not be sufficient. 4. An Advocate is an officer of the Court and when he is appointed as a Local Commissioner, he becomes virtually a part of the Court itself. It is expected that such an advocate will conduct himself in a proper manner and I have no reason to doubt the integrity of Sh.J.D.Negi, Advocate. Changing the Local Commissioner at this stage will cast a doubt on his integrity which I do not want to do. Therefore, this petition is rejected. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 5.1.2011. No order as to costs. November 24, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge