JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J. (Oral) - This revision petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code has been preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff (here-after referred to as the plaintif against the order dated May 31, 1999 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Hamirpur whereby an application of the plaintiff under Section 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for appointment of a Local Commissioner has been dismissed. 2. The material and admitted facts are that Civil Suit No. 411 of 1996 between the parties is pending disposal in the Court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Harnirpur. In the said suit the plaintiff moved an application for appointment of a Local Commissioner to demarcate the land in suit. The application was resisted by the respondents/defendants (here-after referred to as defendants) and after hearing the parties, the learned trial Judge dismissed the application by the impugned order. Hence, the present revision petition. 3. A preliminary objection has been raised for the defendants that a revision petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code is not maintainable against the impuged order. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the question so raised. 5. An order declining to appoint a Local Commissioner on the basis of an application under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be said to be an order which would have the effect of finally disposing of the suit or other proceedings before the Court. It is open to the party whose application for such appointment has been declined, to summon the material records and the persons concerned with the preparation/maintenance thereof. The further remedy available to the party aggrived by such an order is available by agitating the order in appeal if it becomes necessary to file an appeal against the final decree that may be passed in the suit. Therefore, are vision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code is not maintainable against an order declining to appoint a Local Commissioner in exercise of the powers under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. 6. Therefore, are vision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code is not maintainable against an order declining to appoint a Local Commissioner in exercise of the powers under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. 6. While dealing with a similar question, a Division Bench of this Court in case Yash Paul Sood v. Devinder Parkash, Civil Revision No. 227 of 1998, decided on 24-9-1998, has held as follows : "Consequently, we are of the view that the order declining to allow an application for appointing a Local Commission file under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be said to be an order, which would have the effect of finally disposing of the suit or other proceeding and if allowed to stand would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it has been made." 7. In view of the above position in law, the present revision petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. There is no order as to costs 8. The parties, through their learned counsel, are directed to appear before the trial Court on 31-5-2000. Records of the trial Court be returned forthwith. Petition dismissed.