IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.322 of 2006 Date of decision : March 12, 2010 Manohar Lal Butail & another …Petitioners. Versus Vijay Kumar Vashisht …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. R.L. Sood, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ashok Sood, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Heard. 2. A consent decree was passed by the lower Court. In terms of the consent decree, a path was to be constructed/developed on a portion of the land shown in the Tatima. DH filed an Execution Petition for the execution of the decree. JD-respondent took the plea that he had already constructed the path. Executing Court appointed a Local Commissioner, Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate, to visit the spot and to report whether, in terms of the consent decree, a path had been constructed on the site depicted in the Tatima, in question. 3. Local Commissioner submitted report that no path had been constructed. JD-respondent filed objections Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… to the report. He also moved an application for appointment of another Local Commissioner, pleading that since there was a boundary dispute, some Revenue Officer may be appointed as Local Commissioner. 4. Learned trial Court, without deciding the objections filed by the JD-respondent against the report of Local Commissioner, Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate, allowed the application of the JD-respondent for appointment of another Local Commissioner. Course adopted by the Executing Court is improper and contrary to law. When the first report is still on record and it has not been set aside, there could not have been any order for appointment of a fresh Local Commissioner for the same purpose. 5. In view of the abovestated position, the present petition is allowed. Impugned order, dated 29th August, 2006, Annexure PF, is set aside. The trial Court shall consider the request of the JD-respondent for appointment of a fresh Local Commissioner only if it first comes to a conclusion that objections filed by the JD-respondent against the report of the Local Commissioner, Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate, have merit and then sets aside the report of the said Local Commissioner. Of course, before deciding the objections, the trial Court shall afford opportunity to the DH-petitioners to file reply to the objections and to support the report of the Local Commissioner. …3… Record of the trial Court be sent back, with a copy of this order. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 7th April, 2010. March 12, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J