Sat Pal ( 1 ) THIS is an application filed by the defendants underorder 39 Rules 1 and 2 read within Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in this application the plaintiff has sought the permission of thiscourt to raise the boundary wall on the suit property bearing No. 33/41,punjabi Bagh (West), New Delhi for the proper safety and security of theproperty. It has also been prayed in the application that the plaintiff berestrained by means of an ad interim injunction from causing any obstruction in erection of boundary walls facing front road and side road of the saidproperty. ( 2 ) NOTICE of this application was given to the plaintiff who has filedthe reply in opposition to the application. The plaintiff has submitted that itwas the right and prerogrative of the plaintiff either to construct the wall ornot as the plaintiff was in occupation of the land in question. ( 3 ) MR. Sindhwani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant/applicant, submitted that the suit property was in occupation of thedefendant and the erection of the boundary wall on the plot was necessaryfor the proper safety to the suit property. In this connection the learnedcounsel drew my attention to the orders dated 11/01/1989 and 18thsep. ,1989 passed in this case, in terms of which the parties were orderedto maintain status quo regarding possession as on 8/12/1987 withregard to the plot in question. Mr. Goel, the learned Counsel appearingon behalf of the plaintiff, however, submitted that the plaintiff was in occupation of the suit property and the plaintiff was willing to erect the boundarywall at his expense. ( 4 ) FROM the order dated 11/01/1989, it is clear that since thequestion of possession was disputed by the parties, this Court directed statusquo as on 8/12/1989 regarding possession. I am, therefore, of theopinon that it will be in the interest of justice that the boundary wall is erected through an independent person. ( 5 ) DURING the course of the arguments the learned Counsel for theparties agreed that for this purpose a Local Commissioner may be appointedand the partics will share equally the expenses for erection of the boundarywall and fee of the Local Commissioner. ( 6 ) IN view of the above, I appoint Mr. ( 5 ) DURING the course of the arguments the learned Counsel for theparties agreed that for this purpose a Local Commissioner may be appointedand the partics will share equally the expenses for erection of the boundarywall and fee of the Local Commissioner. ( 6 ) IN view of the above, I appoint Mr. J. C. Verma, Advocate, Chamber No. 525, Patiala House Court, New Delhi, as a Local Commissioner,under whose directions the boundary wall will be erected. The Local Commissioner shall be paid Rs. 4,000. 00 as fee which shall be equally shared (1/2by the plaintiff and 1/2 by the defendants ). Similarly the expenses for erecting the walls will be paid by the parties equally i. e. one-half by the plaintiffand one-half by the defendants. The parties will be at liberty to suggest thename of any contractor/mason for erecting the boundary wall to the Localcommissioner who will engage a person whose quotation will be the minimum. With this order the application stands disposed of. ( 7 ) A copy of this order be given to the Counsel for the parties to behanded over to Mr. J. C. Verma, the Local Commissioner who shall submithis report within four weeks. Petition allowed.