The judgment emphasized the importance of the court's discretion in accepting or rejecting the Commissioner's report and highlighted the potential for miscarriage of justice in the mechanical and indiscriminate appointment of more than one Commission.

Rajiv Sharma, J.

This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge Hamirpur, H.P. dated 26.5.2003, passed in Civil Appeal No.103 of 1998.

2. Key facts, necessary for the adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the appellants-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) have instituted suit against the respondent-defendant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) for possession by way of demolition of construction on land marked A,B,C and D, measuring 2 marlas comprised in Khata No. 73, Khatauni No. 131, Kh. No. 136 measuring 1 kanal 11 marlas as per jamabandi for the year 1973-74, situated in Up-Mahal Gandhi Nagar (Gaura Khurd), Tappa Bajuri, Tehsil and Distt. Hamirpur, corresponding Khata No. 60, Khatauni No. 302 to 305, plots 8 area 613 meters 33 centimeters, as per missal haquiat bandobast for the year 1984-85. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant has encroached 2 marlas of the land marked as mark A, B, C and D by re-constructing the boundary wall and latrine in the absence of plaintiffs and without their consent in November, 1977. The defendant has also manipulated the revenue entries. The plaintiffs requested the defendant to vacate the possession of the suit land encroached upon by him by demolishing a boundary wall and latrine reconstructed by him over the suit land, but to no avail.

3. The suit was contested by the defendant. According to the defendant, the retaining wall was reconstructed prior to the year 1977 on his own land and the latrine was also constructed prior to the year 1977. The plaintiffs have previously filed a civil suit No. 137 of 1992 qua the suit land before the Sub Judge, Hamirpur. It was withdrawn by the plaintiffs on 6.10.1977.

4. The replication was filed by the plaintiffs to the written statement filed by the defendant. The learned Sub Judge (II), Hamirpur, H.P., framed the issues and dismissed the suit on 25.4.1998. The plaintiffs filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25.4.1998. The learned District Judge, Hamirpur, dismissed the same on 26.5.2003. Hence, this regular second appeal.

5. This Regular Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law on 12.7.2004:

“1. Whether the oral, as well as, documentary evidence produced by the appellants has neither been considered, nor appreciated and the findings are vitiated in accordance with law?”

6. Mr. G.D.Verma, learned Senior Advocate, for the appellants has vehemently argued that the report of the Local Commissioner LC-1 could not be disbelieved. On the other hand, Mr. Rajnish K. Lall, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the defendant has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below.

7. Initially, Civil Suit was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge on 22.4.1988. The appeal was preferred against the judgment and decree dated 22.4.1988 in Civil Appeal No. 98/88. The learned District Judge, Hamirpur vide judgment dated 31.10.1994 remanded the matter and ordered fresh trial of the case in accordance with law. Previously, one Mr. M.L.Sharma DRO Hamirpur was appointed as Local Commissioner. He submitted his report dated 3.2.1986 in the Court. The report was confirmed by the Court vide order dated 1.7.1987. However, the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, set aside the same on 31.10.1994. Thereafter, Sh. Ram Rattan, retired C.O. was appointed as new Local Commissioner on 28.3.1995. He submitted his report dated 24.7.1995 alongwith Tatima, field book and also the statements of the parties. The objections against the report, preferred by the defendant, were dismissed on 7.4.1997. Civil Revision No. 122 of 1997 was preferred against the order. It was directed by this Court that after completion of the evidence, the entire evidence on record, including the report of the Local Commissioner, Tatima and other documents shall be taken into consideration.

8. Plaintiff Braham Dass has appeared as PW-1. According to him, the defen