JUDGMENT Justice V.K. Ahuja, J. (oral): Petitioner, who is defendant before the learned trial Court, has challenged the order dated 21.6.2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.V, Shimla, vide which he had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC for allowing him to examine his expert. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a suit for partition was pending before the learned trial Court. A preliminary decree had been passed by the Court and an application for passing the final decree was pending before the learned trial Court, who had appointed Municipal Engineer as a Local Commissioner to effect the partition by metes and bounds in between the parties. The said expert, as submitted, had already submitted the report. Objections to the report were filed by the petitioner/defendant and the said Local Commissioner was also cross examined by the petitioner when he was produced in the Court. Thereafter, the present application was filed by the petitioner for examining his own expert with some new suggestions for effecting the final partition in between the parties. 3. The learned trial court after considering the facts of the case had dismissed the said application filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the said order. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the facts of the case as argued by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order. 5. At the time of final partition, the Court has to appoint a Local Commissioner and in case objections are filed to the report of the Local Commissioner and he is also examined and cross examined by the parties, then the Court is to determine as to whether the report of the expert should be accepted or not and whether the final decree should be passed or not. All these objections are to be considered by the Court when submissions are made at the time of passing the final decree. All these objections are to be considered by the Court when submissions are made at the time of passing the final decree. However, no other expert, as sought to be examined by the petitioner, can be examined at this stage to substantiate his submissions or point out infirmities in the report of the Local Commissioner or come up with fresh suggestions that may be considered proper by the petitioner by examining his own expert. All these things are not permissible and the Court has to only consider the objections filed to the report of the Local Commissioner, his examination and cross examination, and then decide as to whether the final decree has to be passed or not, or as to whether there is necessity to examine another expert to effect the partition by metes and bounds in between the parties. 6.In view of the above discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court and the present petition, thus, merits dismissal and the same is dismissed. The learned trial Court shall proceed with the case in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made, as above. Parties to appear before the learned trial Court on 27.9.2012. The Registry is directed to send the records of the case alongwith a copy of this judgment to the learned trial Court forthwith. It has been pointed out that the case pertains to the year 2003. Therefore, the learned trial Court shall take steps to dispose of the case, as far as possible, within a period of four months from the date fixed. 7.The petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any.