JUDGMENT : DARSHAN SINGH, J. The present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner-defendant against the order dated 10.02.2016, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mahendergarh, whereby the application moved by respondent-plaintiff for demarcation of the suit land through GPS system has been allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in fact the demarcation was already carried out. The pucca points were not available. He contended that demarcation was not even possible through GPS system as there is abadi. He further contended that in the impugned order, the learned trial Court has mentioned that the parties had agreed for demarcation through GPS system. In fact the petitioner never agreed for the same. Even an application has been filed by the petitioner for recalling the order and the same is pending before the learned trial Court. Thus, he contended that the impugned order is illegal. 3. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions. 4. It is evident from the impugned order that Dinesh Kumar Tehsildar was appointed as a Local Commissioner by the learned trial Court. He has appeared before the Court and made the statement that the accurate measurement was not possible on account of dry pond in between and the long distance from three pucca points to the disputed spot. Therefore, for the accurate measurement and demarcation of the site in dispute, he has sought the permission for carrying out the demarcation of the suit property by GPS system, which is the latest scientific technique. The same is generally adopted to demarcate the property which is situated in abadi and at long distance from the pucca points, in order to achieve the accuracy. The learned trial Court was competent to pass this order even if the petitioner would not have agreed, once it was found that the demarcation of the suit property was not possible in the ordinary and conservative method. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show as to what prejudice will be caused to the rights of the petitioner if the demarcation is carried out by the scientific method of GPS system particularly when the Local Commissioner has already been appointed by the learned trial court for demarcation of the suit property. 5. Thus, keeping in view my aforesaid discussion, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. 6. 5. Thus, keeping in view my aforesaid discussion, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. 6. Resultantly, the present revision petition being without any merits is hereby dismissed.