CMPMO No.24 of 2008 24.4.2008 Present: Ms.Urmil Thakur, vice counsel for the petitioner. On the last date of hearing, I had passed the following order: “On merits, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned court below. However, Ms.Urmila Thakur appearing vice counsel for the petitioner submits that even if a Local Commissioner is to be appointed, some other Local Commissioner may be appointed since according to her Tehsildar (Urban), Shimla is known to the respondent. This argument of the counsel is not supported by any material on record. She prays for and is granted ten days time to file additional affidavit. List the matter on 24.4.2008.” Now an affidavit has been filed. In the affidavit it is stated as follows: “It is submitted that the Local Commissioner, who has been appointed by the learned Court below is known to the tenant of the plaintiff/respondent and oftenly visits the house of the tenant where the plaintiff/respondent also joins their company.” The averments made levelling allegations against the Local Commissioner are absolutely vague, to say the least. The name of the tenant has not been mentioned, name of the Local Commissioner appointed has not been mentioned and when he visited the tenant in the presence of the respondent has not been mentioned. On such vague allegations the appointment of the Local Commissioner cannot be set-aside. Consequently, there is no merit in the petition which is dismissed. April 24, 2008. (Deepak Gupta), PV Judge