IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 265 of 2010 Date of decision: 29.09.2010 Gurmit Singh …Petitioner. Versus Gram Panchayat, Majara & others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Vikas Mishra, Advocate. For the respondent: Ex-parte. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 16.03.2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. IV, Una, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiff’) for appointment of Local Commissioner to demarcate the suit land. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit claiming that he is owner in possession of the suit property depicted as ABCDEF in the site plan attached to the suit. The respondent-Gram Panchayat submitted that portion ABEF is a common village path and khasra No. 1501 is a village gohar. 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 Ownership of the plaintiff over khasra No. 1499, however, is not denied. A plea was specifically taken that the path in khasra No. 1501 was 3 meters wide. This suit was filed in the year 2000 and the written statement was also filed in September, 2000 itself. Thereafter, the parties led evidence and after completion of the evidence, when the matter was listed for hearing, then an application was filed that a Local Commissioner be appointed to demarcate the suit land. In this application, a vague allegation was made that the respondents – defendants have encroached upon the land of plaintiff by constructing a path over khasra No. 1499 and khasra No. 1554. There is no allegation as to when this construction was made or when the encroachment was done. This application filed at the belated stage of final hearing was rightly rejected by the learned trial Court. As pointed out above, defendants in their written statement had clearly set out their pleas. If the petitioner wanted demarcation of the land, the appropriate stage for him to apply for demarcation was immediately thereafter and he cannot be permitted to ask for demarcation at this stage when the case, after ten long years, has been fixed for final hearing. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge September 29, 2010 (rajni)