JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.4.2010 whereby the learned District Judge, Una allowed the application filed by the appellant-respondent for appointment of Local Commissioner. The order passed by the learned District Judge clearly shows that he has not properly applied his mind to the facts of the case. The application which was filed before the learned District Judge is a verbatim copy of the application filed by the plaintiff-respondent for appointment of Local Commissioner before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court rejected this application vide a detailed order dated 6.12.2008. Thereafter, the matter was heard on merits and was decided in favour of the present petitioner-defendant. Obviously, one of the grounds raised in the appeal was that the order of the learned Trial Court rejecting the application for appointment of Local Commissioner was not correct. As observed above, the learned Trial Court passed a detailed order, a copy of which has been attached as Annexure P/3, rejecting the prayer for appointment of Local Commissioner. The learned Appellate Court while appointing the Local Commissioner has not at all considered the order passed by the learned Trial Court and has made no reference to it in his order despite the fact that in the reply to the application, specific reference was made to the order of the learned Trial Court. Therefore, the order of the learned Lower Appellate Court dated 23.4.2010 appointing Local Commissioner is set aside. It is however, clarified that when the appeal is finally heard, if the learned Appellate Court comes to a finding that the learned Trial Court had erroneously rejected the prayer for appointment of Local Commissioner, it may consider the prayer for appointment of fresh Local Commissioner. The petition is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms. The parties though their counsel are directed to appear before the learned Lower Appellate Court on 15.2.2011. No order as to costs.