JUDGMENT V.M. Jain, J.—This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the legal representatives of Prem Chand plaintiff against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court and the appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge. 2. The facts, which are relevant for the decision of the present appeal, are that Prem Chand plaintiff had filed a suit for possession and also for damages towards the use and occupation of the suit property by the defendants on the ground that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property and that the defendants were in unauthorized possession thereof. The suit was contested by defendant No. 1. It was denied that he had trespassed into the suit land of the plaintiff in connivance with defendant No. 2 or otherwise or that he was liable to pay damages towards the use and occupation of the same. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. In appeal, the learned District Judge had allowed the plaintiff-appellant to get the suit land demarcated by approaching the concerned revenue officer and as a result thereof, the plaintiff-appellant got the suit land demarcated and produced the demarcation report on the record before the learned District Judge. The other side had filed objections against the said demarcation report. Both sides produced evidence regarding the said report. The learned Additional District Judge after hearing both sides rejected the said demarcation report and also dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved against the same, the legal representatives of Prem Chand plaintiff have filed the present Regular Second Appeal in this Court. 3. When the appeal came up for hearing before me on 13.4.2005, the learned Counsel for the appellants submitted before me that the Additional District Judge had rejected the report of the Local Commissioner and still no other Local Commissioner was appointed. Notice, pending admission, was ordered to be issued to respondent No. 1 only and the records were also ordered to be requisitioned. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 5. Notice, pending admission, was ordered to be issued to respondent No. 1 only and the records were also ordered to be requisitioned. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 5. A perusal of the lower appellate Court record would show that the learned District Judge in his order dated 3.4.2001, after noticing that the controversy in the case was as to whether the site where the defendant-respondent had constructed a Dhara is a part of land bearing Khaara No. 637 owned by the plaintiff-appellant or it is a part of the adjoining Government land, found that the said controversy could not be determined unless the site of the Dhara was demarcated at the spot. Accordingly, the plaintiff was directed to take steps for the demarcation of the site and to produce and prove the report of the demarcation. It was directed that he should apply to the concerned revenue officer for demarcation after impleading defendant-respondent in that application. In pursuance of the said order dated 3.4.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, the plaintiffs moved appropriate application before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Shimla who directed the Field Kanungo, Shimla to demarcate the land as per the provisions of law and thereupon the field Kanungo submitted his report dated 31.10.2001. Thereafter, the appellants produced copy of the said demarcaticn report dated 31.10.2001 before the learned District Judge and against the said report, defendant-respondent No. 1 filed objections. Thereafter, the case was adjourned for the evidence or the plaintiff-appellant in support of the aforesaid demarcation report and the evidence of the respondent in rebuttal. Both sides led evidence. Thereafter, the learned Additional District Judge, after hearing both the sides and perusing the record, set aside the aforesaid demarcation report and also dismissed the appeal, vide judgment and decree dated 31.12.2004. Aggrieved against the same, the present appeal has been filed in this Court. 6. From a perusal of the above, it would be clear that in pursuance of the order dated 3.4.2001 passed by the learned District Judge, the plaintiff had moved the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, for the demarcation of the suit land and the Assistant Collector had directed the Field Kanungo to demarcate the land as per the provisions of law. Furthermore, against the said report of the Field Kanungo, the defendant-respondent No. 1 had filed objections. Furthermore, against the said report of the Field Kanungo, the defendant-respondent No. 1 had filed objections. Both sides had also led evidence in support of their respective contentions. It was thereafter that the learned Additional District Judge had rejected the aforesaid demarcation report on the ground that while submitting the said report, the field Kanungo had not followed the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner and had failed to give the demarcation report in accordance with law. That being so, in my opinion, it was the duty of the learned Additional District Judge to have obtained another demarcation report in respect of the suit property in accordance with law. Instead of doing so, the learned Additional District Judge, after rejecting the aforesaid demarcation report, had proceeded to decide the appeal and dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. In my opinion, the course adopted by the learned Additional District Judge is contrary to law, inasmuch as the learned Additional District Judge having rejected the demarcation report on technical ground that the Field Kanungo had not followed the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner while submitting the said report, had failed to get another demarcation report in this regard. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my opinion, it is a fit case where the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge be set aside and the case remanded to the learned Additional District Judge for deciding the appeal afresh after obtaining a fresh demarcation report in accordance with law. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the present appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge are set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Additional District Judge for decision afresh in accordance with law. 8. As referred to above, vide order dated 3.4.2001, the learned District Judge had found that the controversy could not be determined unless the site of the Dhara was demarcated on the spot and the plaintiff was ordered to take steps for the demarcation of the site and to produce and prove the report of demarcation. 8. As referred to above, vide order dated 3.4.2001, the learned District Judge had found that the controversy could not be determined unless the site of the Dhara was demarcated on the spot and the plaintiff was ordered to take steps for the demarcation of the site and to produce and prove the report of demarcation. Since the demarcation report so obtained by the plaintiff-appellant, was not in conformity with the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner and had to be rejected by the learned Additional District Judge, in my opinion, it would be in the interest of justice that instead of directing the appellants to obtain a fresh demarcation report through the revenue officials, a direction is given to the learned Additional. District Judge to appoint a Local Commissioner (preferably a revenue official, other than the one who had submitted the aforesaid demarcation report which has since been rejected) and to direct him to submit the demarcation report within a specified period and also to direct him to follow the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner in this regard while submitting the demarcation report in accordance with law. The expenses of the Local Commissioner shall be borne by the appellants. 9. Parties through their Counsel are directed to appear before the learned Additional District Judge on 28.6.2005 for further proceedings in accordance with law. Appeal disposed of. -