JUDGMENT

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. - The application moved by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), seeking appointment of Local Commissioner for ascertaining the age of apple plants statedly growing over the suit land, has not found favour with the learned Trial Court. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant petition.

2. Facts:-

2(i). The respondents issued a notice to the petitioner under the provisions of H.P. Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 (in short 'Act'). The petitioner thereafter filed a civil suit with prayers, inter alia, that entries in the revenue record pertaining to the suit land are wrong, illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of law. It was further prayed that those revenue entries and the notice issued to the petitioner under the Act be declared as null and void.

2(ii). The suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff was resisted by the respondent-State. For the purpose of present controversy, it be noted that the stand of the respondent-State in the written statement was that it was owner of the suit land for the last 50 years. The ownership of the State over the suit