CMPMO No. 113 of 2011. 22.11.2011 Present: Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by learned District Judge, Shimla on 10.1.2011 directing the appointment of a local commissioner for demarcation/ measurement of the suit land. It is undisputed before me that during the pendency of the suit such local commissioner was in fact appointed and he submitted his report Ex.PW4/A. The respondent herein before the learned trial Court had filed an application for appointment of the local commissioner stating inter alia that the only objection raised with respect to the demarcation report Ex.PW4/A was that demarcation was not carried out in accordance with the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner. The respondent pleads that the revenue expert be appointed as local commissioner for the measurement of the suit land and for determining the true nature of the controversy. 2. Without pre-empting the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties before this Court, what I find from the order is that it is a non speaking order and does not dwell in any manner upon the fact as to why the appointment of second local commissioner is necessitated. Surely the learned Appellate Court relied upon same facts for the appointment of the local commissioner, if so permissible in law and in these circumstances some reasons must be stated in the order. 3. In these circumstances, order dated 10.1.2011, (Annexure P-7) is quashed and set aside. Learned Appellate Court to proceed with the case in accordance with law. Record if received, be sent back forthwith. (Dev Darshan Sud),J. November 22, 2011. (jai)