ORDER : 1. Present civil revision petition is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against the order of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mandi announced in Civil Suit No. 52 of 2014 dated 30.4.2015 whereby learned trial Court allowed two applications i.e. application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) CPC and second application under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC. Brief facts of the case 2. Shashi Pal non-revisionist filed suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction under Specific Relief Act 1963 pleaded therein that non-revisionist is co-owner in possession of Khata-Khatauni No. 13/18, Khasra No. 457 measuring 0-5-0 bigha, situated in Mauja Bhargaon Sub Tehsil Kotli District Mandi Himachal Pradesh as per jamabandi for the year 2008-09. It is further pleaded that revisionists are co-owner in possession of Khata Khatauni No. 76/100 khasra No. 458 along with their brother, mother and sister measuring 0-4-0 bigha situated in Mauja Bhargaon Sub Tehsil Kotli District Mandi Himachal Pradesh as per jamabandi for the year 2008-09. It is further pleaded that between boundaries of khasra No. 457 and 458 there is a land comprised in khasra No. 456 recorded in the ownership of Government of Himachal Pradesh. It is further pleaded that non-revisionist is serving in Indian Army in Assam Rifles and presently posted at Imphal (Manipur) and family of non-revisionist is residing in the house situated in khasra No. 457. It is further pleaded that revisionists with mala-fide intention and ulterior motive and in order to cause injury to the non-revisionist and his family members w.e.f. 10.7.2013 dug and excavated the Government land comprised in khasra No. 456 by way of deploying JCB Machine and also excavated and dug the land in khasra No. 456 in unscientific manner and caused imminent danger to the residential house of non-revisionist which would fall at any time. It is further pleaded that non-revisionist also reported the matter to Superintendent of Police Mandi Himachal Pradesh and D.F.O. Mandi and non-revisionist sought relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the revisionists from digging or excavating the land comprised in khasra No. 456. Non-revisionist also sought additional relief of mandatory injunction directing the revisionists to restore the land comprised in khasra No. 456 to its natural condition by way of providing retaining wall to protect the house of the non-revisionist. 3. Non-revisionist also sought additional relief of mandatory injunction directing the revisionists to restore the land comprised in khasra No. 456 to its natural condition by way of providing retaining wall to protect the house of the non-revisionist. 3. Revisionists filed written statement pleaded therein that suit is not maintainable and non-revisionist has no locus standi to file and maintain the suit. It is further pleaded that non-revisionist has no cause of action and suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties. It is further pleaded that the suit be dismissed with special costs as provided under Section 35 Code of Civil Procedure 1908. It is further pleaded that no excavation conducted by the revisionists upon khasra No. 456 and it is further pleaded that only excavation has been conducted by the revisionists upon their own land comprised in khasra No. 458. It is further pleaded that revisionists did not excavate and dig khasra No. 456 in un-scientific manner as pleaded in the plaint. It is further pleaded that on the contrary non-revisionist himself has encroached upon khasra No. 456 belonging to Government of Himachal Pradesh and raised construction over khasra No. 456. It is pleaded that khasra No. 456 belongs to Government of Himachal Pradesh and non-revisionist has no legal right or locus standi to seek any permanent prohibitory injunction upon khasra No. 456 relating to Government of Himachal Pradesh. It is further pleaded that non-revisionist has no cause of action. Prayer for dismissal of suit sought. 4. Non-revisionist filed replication and re-asserted the allegations mentioned in the plaint. On dated 4.6.2014 learned trial Court framed following issues:- (i) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for? OPP (ii) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction as alleged? OPP (iii) Whether suit is not maintainable? OPD (iv) Whether plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit against the defendant? OPD (v) Whether suit of plaintiff is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD (vi) Relief. 5. Civil Suit is pending before learned trial Court and listed for evidence of non-revisionist. During the pendency of civil suit non-revisionist filed application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) read with Section 151 CPC and also filed application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC. OPD (vi) Relief. 5. Civil Suit is pending before learned trial Court and listed for evidence of non-revisionist. During the pendency of civil suit non-revisionist filed application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) read with Section 151 CPC and also filed application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the revisionists and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the non-revisionist at length and also perused the entire record carefully. Following point arises for determination in the revision petition:- 1. Whether revision petition filed by the revisionists is liable to be accepted as mentioned in the memorandum of grounds of revision petition? 2. Relief. Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons: 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the revisionists that learned trial Court has decided both the applications by a common order and committed illegality which cannot be cured and on this ground revision petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is held that there is no bar under law that two applications cannot be decided by way of a common order in same civil suit. 7. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the revisionists that documents were not mentioned in the list of documents filed along with the plaint and no valid reason has been given by the non-revisionist and documents sought to be produced are not corroborative evidence in support of the claim and learned trial Court illegally allowed the application is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Non-revisionist intended to file copy of application dated 24.9.2013 filed by Smt. Drompti Devi wife of the non-revisionist to the Additional Superintendent of Police Mandi Himachal Pradesh and also intended to place on record report dated 1.11.2013 submitted by Incharge Special Investigation Wing Mandi District Mandi Himachal Pradesh Court is of the opinion that both the documents are public documents. Court is also of the opinion that copy of application dated 24.9.2013 was filed before the Additional Superintendent of Police Mandi District Mandi Himachal Pradesh and Court is also of the opinion that report dated 1.11.2013 submitted by Incharge Special Investigation Wing Mandi is also submitted to a public servant in discharging of his official duties. Both the documents are relevant documents as per Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. Both the documents are relevant documents as per Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is well settled law that facts can be proved by parties by way of two methods:- (i) By way of adducing oral evidence. (ii) By way of adducing documentary evidence. Court is of the opinion that application dated 24.9.2013 and report dated 1.11.2013 will be proved in accordance with law as mentioned under Indian Evidence Act 1872. Court is of the opinion that due opportunity will be granted to the revisionists to cross-examine the witnesses and due opportunity will be granted to the non-revisionist to adduce rebuttal evidence. There is difference between:- (i) Document sued on. (ii) Document relied upon by plaintiff as evidence in support of his claim. Civil Suit is in the stage of plaintiff evidence and defendants have not started their defence evidence in civil suit as of today. Hence it is held that learned trial Court did not commit any illegality by way of accepting the application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) read with Section 151 CPC. 8. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the revisionists that learned trial Court has committed illegality by way of appointment local commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC is also rejected being devoid any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is the case of the non-revisionist that revisionists have excavated khasra No. 456 in unscientific manner which has caused danger to the residential house of non-revisionist. It is well settled law that neighbour cannot be allowed to use his land in such a manner as to create nuisance to his neighbourers. Darshan Ram and Another vs. Nazar Ram, AIR 1989 (P&H) 253 . Non-revisionist sought the appointment of local commissioner to ascertain the manner and extent of excavation and digging conducted by the revisionists in khasra No. 456 and also to ascertain extent of danger to the residential house of the non-revisionist. As per Order 26 Rule 9 CPC if Courts deem local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating of any matter in dispute then Court may issue commission. 9. Appointment of local commissioner is matter of judicial discretion. M/s. Filmistan Private Ltd. Bombay vs. M/s. Bhagwandas Santprakash and Another, AIR 1971 SC 61 (DB). As per Order 26 Rule 9 CPC if Courts deem local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating of any matter in dispute then Court may issue commission. 9. Appointment of local commissioner is matter of judicial discretion. M/s. Filmistan Private Ltd. Bombay vs. M/s. Bhagwandas Santprakash and Another, AIR 1971 SC 61 (DB). Revisionists have a legal right to raise objections upon local commissioner report and if any objections would be filed upon the local commissioner report then learned trial Court would be under legal obligations to dispose of objections filed by the revisionists in accordance with law. Even under Order 10 (2) Code of Civil Procedure 1908 objectors can examine the local commissioner personally in the open Court touching any of the matters referred to him or mentioned in his report or as to his report or as to manner in which he made the investigation. Keeping in view the fact that revisionists have legal right to file objections upon local commissioner report and keeping in view the fact that learned trial Court is under legal obligation to dispose of the objections filed against the local commissioner report it is held that learned trial Court did not commit any illegality in the present case by way of appointing local commissioner. 10. Court has also perused the photographs placed on record and also perused jamabandi for the years 2008-09 relating to khasra No. 457. In the ownership column of khasra No. 457 it has been specifically mentioned that 10/11 shares of ownership are in favour of Ranvir Singh, Bheem Singh, Surender Singh, Jeet Singh, Ravi Singh, Bhoop Singh, Hakam Singh, Shashipal, Gopal Singh, Krishan Kumar sons of Keshav Ram and 1/11 share is in the ownership of Kapil Dev, Dharmender sons and Smt. Maya Devi widow Hoshiar Singh son of Keshav Ram. There is recital in the jamabandi placed on record that there is residential and shop upon khasra No. 457. Court has also perused jamabandi for the year 2008-09 relating to khasra No. 458. As per jamabandi Tej Singh, Hans Raj and Mast Ram sons and Smt. Krishna Devi daughter and Neela Devi widow of Narayan Dass are co-owners of khasra No. 458 and nature of khasra No. 458 has been shown as Sehan. Court has also perused jamabandi for the year 2008-09 relating to khasra No. 456. As per jamabandi Tej Singh, Hans Raj and Mast Ram sons and Smt. Krishna Devi daughter and Neela Devi widow of Narayan Dass are co-owners of khasra No. 458 and nature of khasra No. 458 has been shown as Sehan. Court has also perused jamabandi for the year 2008-09 relating to khasra No. 456. Khasra No. 456 is in the ownership of State of Himachal Pradesh and in the possession column name of PWD department is recorded. In view of the fact that civil suit is listed for evidence of non-revisionist and in view of the fact that revisionists have not started their evidence in Civil Suit No. 52 of 2014 and in view of the fact that revisionists will be at liberty to file oral as well as documentary rebuttal evidence it is held that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to interfere with the order of learned trial Court dated 30.4.2015. Point No. 1 is answered in negative against the revisionists. Point No. 2 (Relief): 11. In view of the findings upon point No. 1 above revision petition is dismissed. Order of learned trial Court dated 30.4.2015 passed in Civil Suit No. 52 of 2014 titled Shashi Pal vs. Tez Singh and Another is affirmed. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 31.12.2015. File of learned trial Court along with certified copy of this order be sent back forthwith. Revision petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending applications if any also disposed of.