Judgment VINEY MITTAL, J. 1. The learned counsel appearing for the present appellant has point out that a Local Commissioner was appointed with agreement of the parties before the trial court and a demarcation report had been submitted. 2. On the basis of the aforesaid demarcation report, the suit of the plaintiff had been dismissed and the counter claim filed by the defendants had been decreed by the trial Court. However, the learned first Appellate Court had found that the aforesaid demarcation report was not in accordance with law. 3. The learned counsel has thus argued that even if the aforesaid report was not in accordance with law the appellate Court could have, on some application filed by the aggrieved party, appointed another Local commissioner but in any case, the findings recorded by the trial court and the judgment and decree of the trial Court could not have been set aside. 4. Faced with the aforesaid difficulty, Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff- respondent has very fairly conceded that the order dated April 30, 2005 passed by the additional District Judge, Gurgaon be set aside and a liberty be granted to the plaintiffrespondent to file an application for appointment of a Local Commissioner before the Appellate Court itself. 5. In view of the fair stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondent, the present appeal is allowed. The order dated April 30, 2005, passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, is set aside. Liberty is granted to the plaintiff- respondent to file an appropriate application before the first Appellate Court for appointment of a fresh Local commissioner. If any such application is filed by the plaintiff- respondent before the appellate Court, then the Appellate Court shall decide the same in accordance with law. 6. The present appeal is thus disposed of accordingly. The parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the Additional District Judge, on May 1, 2006.