IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT

SHIMLA

CMPMO No.806 of 2025

nd

Decided on 02 January 2026

Sunder Singh

…Petitioner

Versus

Baru Ram and others

…Respondents

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge

1

Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioner: Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for

the following reliefs:-

(a) “Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India, calling for the records of the case and quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Shillai, District

i Sirmaur (H.P.), whereby the application filed by the

H Petitioners under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section

151 CPC seeking appointment of a Local

Commissioner has been dismissed;

(b) Direct the Learned Trial Court to appoint an

independent and impartial Local Commissioner, preferably a retired Revenue Officer not connected with the local administration, for conducting a fresh, lawful, and scientific demarcation of the suit land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 144/360, Khasra No. 6201/6022/1877 measuring 00-19-00 bigha, situated in Mouja Shillai, Tehsil Shillai, District

Sirmaur (H.P.), strictly in accordance with law, after associating all the parties and by drawing demarcation from pucca points;

(c) Direct that the demarcation report submitted by the Local Commissioner be taken on record and considered by the Learned Trial Court for the purposes of effective enforcement of the ad-interim injunction order dated 17.05.2022 and for adjudication of pending proce edings, including the application under Order 39 fRule 2A CPC;

(d) Pending the final disposal of the present petition, restrain the respondents No. 1 to 5 from carrying out any further construction, excavation, or interference of any nature whatsoever over the suit land, in violation of the injunction order dated 17.05.2022.”

2. Petitioner is one of the plaintiffs and other plaintiffs have not chosen to assail the impugned order. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 14.11.2025, passed by the learned Trial Court, in terms whereof, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 26, Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code for the appointment of a Local Commissioner has been dismissed.

3. Having heard Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the impugned order as well as the other documents appended with this petition, this Court does not finds any infirmity in the order under challenge.

4. The application filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code is appended with the pet.ition as Annexure P-3. The relevant portion of this application is quoted hereinbelow:- H “That vide order dated-17-05-2022 this Id.

Court was pleased to pass an injunctory order in application no CMA 66/2021 against the respondents/defendants directing them to maintain status quo qua interfering, trespassing and encroaching the su it land till the disposal of the suit.

That desptite the injunctry order dated 17-05-

2022 the rerspondents/ defendants are disobeying and violating the same and doing construction work on a good portion of the suit land. The applicants approached the police to get the order supra implemented and stop the constriction work but the police connived with the respondent. It is submitted that the settlement work in the area is also in progress but the revenue officials of the settlement department are also in league with the defendants who happened to be financially strong and influential. Thus it is necessary and expedient that the demarcation of the suit land be ordered to be carried out by some local commissioner and may be some retired Rag revenue officer. In case some retired impartial revenue officer is appointed as local commissioner for demarcation of the suit land then it would be the interest of justice and shall help this Id. Court in imparting complete justice to the parties to the