IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 342 of 2010 Date of decision: 20.09.2010 Gian Chand …Petitioner. Versus Rattan Lal …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1No. For the petitioner: Ms. Seema Sood, Advocate. For the respondent : None. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 10.08.2010, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff for appointment of Local Commissioner has been rejected. 2. It is not disputed that the application was filed at the fag end of the suit, when the case was listed for arguments. The plea in the application was that despite stay orders granted by the Court, the defendant had constructed kitchen and occupied 7 x 2 meters of the land, owned and possessed by the plaintiff. This is the only ground given in the application for appointment of Local Commissioner. 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 3. Petitioner has already been examined in Court and in his cross-examination, he admitted that he had obtained demarcation of the land from the Revenue Authorities before filing the suit. The learned trial Court has rightly held that once plaintiff had obtained demarcation of the land, he should have either proved the said demarcation but could not ask the court to appoint Local Commissioner to demarcate the land without getting the earlier demarcation report set aside. 4. In this behalf, reference may be made to judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in Amar Singh versus Narpat Ram, 2010 (1) Him. L. R. 474, wherein it has been clearly held that if a demarcation report is given by the revenue authorities, unless the same is set aside or not accepted by the Court, no ground is made out for appointment of Local Commissioner. 5. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge September 20, 2010 (rajni)