JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J. - The only question raised in this second appeal is about the demarcation given by the Local Commissioner appointed by the trial Court with the consent of the parties. 2. Mr. Ajay Sharma strenuously urges that the Local Commissioners report is not in accordance with law and therefore, deserved no consideration. He specifically refers to Section 107 of the HP. Land Revenue Act which empowers the Revenue Officer to give demarcation of the land and submits that this demarcation was given by a Kanungo who is not a Revenue Officer within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act and therefore, this demarcation given by the Kanungo is nonest and could not have been considered. 3. The submission is un-tenable. The fact is that the learned trial Court appointed Shri Man Singh, Field Kanungo as Local Commissioner to demarcate the suit land with the consent of the parties under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Rule 9 of Order 26 empowers a Court to appoint any person as Local Commissioner for local investigation for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute. In view of the expression provisions of law the appointment of the Field Kanungo as Commissioner cannot be faulted with. This apart it is not open to the appellant to question the validity of the appointment of Local Commissioner in this second appeal when he expressly consented for appointment of Shri Man Singh, Field, Kanungo as the Local Commissioner. 4. Faced with the situation, Mr. Sharma contends that houses of the appellant are constructed on the land for which decree for possession has been passed. No such question was raised before the learned District Judge nor it find mention in the grounds of appeal before this Court. 5. Mr. Sharma then contends that the land in question is factually not comprised in Khasra No. 90, Khasra No. 65/1 was 0-5 Kanal, whereas now it is 0-01-19 HM which comes to more than six Marlas. This question was not raised before the trial Court or the first appellate Court and therefore it is not open to the appellant to raise this question of fact for the first time in second appeal. It is noticed that no objections were raised against the report of the Local Commissioner. 6. This question was not raised before the trial Court or the first appellate Court and therefore it is not open to the appellant to raise this question of fact for the first time in second appeal. It is noticed that no objections were raised against the report of the Local Commissioner. 6. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. OMPNo. 138 of 2003 7. No order, in view of the dismissal of the main appeal. The application is disposed of. -