IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No.282 of 2007. Date of decision: 02.07.2008. Member Singh & Others ….Petitioners. Versus Narotam Lal & another ….Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr.Suneet Goel, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Janesh Gupta, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been moved by the petitioners who are the plaintiffs before the learned trial Court challenging the order passed by the learned trial Court on 29.8.2007 rejecting the application under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the appointment of a Local Commissioner to demarcate the suit land on the allegation that plaintiff is in possession over Khasra No.715 and defendant-respondent No.1 has interfered with the possession of Khasra No.718. 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? 2 The law relating to the issuance of Local Commission etc. has been laid down by this Court in Bali Ram vs. Mela Ram and another, AIR 2003 HP 87, wherein this Court has held that the Commissioner can be appointed at any stage even suo motu by the Court if so required. The learned trial Court has rejected the application solely on the basis that it was for the plaintiffs to have proved the fact that this is not a case for demarcation of boundaries between the parties. In these circumstances, it has considered the entire matter and dismissed the application. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made a number of submissions on the merits of the case. Without entering into that controversy, I do not find any jurisdictional error which would require the interference of this Court under Article 227 of the constitution of India. The petition is disposed of with the directions that:- (1) It will be open to the petitioners- plaintiffs herein to urge about the legality of the appointment or non- appointment of Local Commissioner causing prejudice to the case of the plaintiff. This ground can be urged by him at the stage of the arguments before the learned trial Court or in appeal, if any, which may be preferred by him against the 3 judgment and decree of the trial Court if it is against his interest. (2) The disposal of this petition shall have no bearing on the merits of the submissions which may be made by the petitioners-plaintiffs herein. (3) It would be open to the petitioners- plaintiffs herein to move any other or further application in accordance with law for protection of their rights. This petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. The matter be sent back to the trial Court immediately. Parties to appear before the learned trial Court on 14th August, 2008 where- after the matter shall proceed with due expedition. July 2, 2008 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.