JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this appeal, the appellant have challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Chamba, in Civil Appeal No. 46 of 2002 dated 12.01.2004, vide which learned Appellate Court while accepting the appeal filed by the present respondents, has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Chamba, in Civil Suit No. 59 of 1997 dated 13.05.2002, whereby learned trial Court had decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for possession qua the suit property i.e. room situated on Khasra No. 560/1. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present case are that the appellants/plaintiffs, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs, filed a suit for possession and for mandatory injunction, inter alia, on the ground that they were owners in possession of the suit property i.e. room in the ground floor, situated over Khasra No. 560/1, Khata Khatauni No. 938/1226, Mohalla Ramgarh Chamba Town, as per jamabandi for the year 1990-91. The case of the plaintiffs was that at one stage they and defendants were co-sharers but subsequently property was partitioned between the parties through a decree of the Civil Court which was passed in Civil Suit No. 172 decided on 07.06.1977 by the Court of learned Sub Judge, Chamba and after passing of the said decree, possession of the suit property was also obtained by the plaintiffs to the extent of their share. It was further the case of the plaintiffs that one room in the ground floor situated over Khasra No. 560/1 was handed over to the defendants on the undertaking that they would vacate the same as and when required by the plaintiffs. However, according to the plaintiffs, defendants had forcibly blocked the stair-case and were not allowing the plaintiffs to use the same. On this ground, plaintiffs filed the present suit for possession of room in the ground floor comprising Khasra No. 560/1 and restraining the defendants from blocking the entrance of stair-case to the plaintiffs. 3. However, according to the plaintiffs, defendants had forcibly blocked the stair-case and were not allowing the plaintiffs to use the same. On this ground, plaintiffs filed the present suit for possession of room in the ground floor comprising Khasra No. 560/1 and restraining the defendants from blocking the entrance of stair-case to the plaintiffs. 3. The claim so put forth by the plaintiffs was contested by the defendants, who in their written statement took the stand that defendants were granted possession of one room in the ground floor and one room in the on the first floor comprised in Khasra No. 560/2 in the course of partition which took place between the parties and that defendants were in possession of the said room/property and no room comprised in Khasra No. 560/1 was in their possession as was alleged by the plaintiffs. It was further the case of the defendants that the room which was in the first floor over Khasra No. 560/2 was in possession of the plaintiffs who were supposed to hand over the same to the defendants. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the room in the building in question was temporarily given by the plaintiffs to the defendants for their use and the defendants had undertaken to vacate the same as alleged? ...OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in the affirmative, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree for possession of the room-cum-kitchen as alleged? … OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the suit by way of their act and conduct? …OPD 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? … OPD 5. Whether the suit is within limitation? …OPP 6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? … OPD 7. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? … OPP 8. Relief. 5. On the basis of the evidence which was led by the respective parties before learned trial Court, the following findings were returned to the issues so framed by it:- Issue No. 1: Yes. Issue No. 2: Yes. Issue No. 3: No. Issue No. 4: No. Issue No. 5: Yes. Issue No. 6: No. Issue No. 7: Yes. Relief : The suit is decreed as per operative part of the judgment. 6. Issue No. 2: Yes. Issue No. 3: No. Issue No. 4: No. Issue No. 5: Yes. Issue No. 6: No. Issue No. 7: Yes. Relief : The suit is decreed as per operative part of the judgment. 6. Accordingly, the suit so filed by the plaintiffs was decreed by learned trial Court for possession of the suit property consisting of a room in the ground floor of the building comprising Khasra No. 560/1. While decreeing the suit, it was held by learned trial Court that statements of PW-1 and PW-5 demonstrated that room in the ground floor of the building comprising Khasra No. 560/1 was temporarily handed over by plaintiffs to defendants but subsequently defendants had failed to return back the possession of the same to the plaintiff. Learned trial Court held that the evidence on record demonstrated that the said room was not in possession of the plaintiffs but in fact was in possession of the defendants. On these basis after holding that room comprised in Khasra No. 560/1 in the ground floor was in possession of the defendants, learned trial Court granted a decree of possession qua the same in favour of the plaintiffs. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, defendants preferred appeal. 8. Learned Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 12.01.2004, set aside the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court and allowed the appeal. While allowing the appeal so filed by the defendants, learned Appellate Court relied upon a report filed by the Local Commissioner who was appointed during the pendency of the appeal before learned Appellate Court. Learned Appellate Court also took into consideration the factum of it (learned District Judge) also having visited the spot. It was held by learned Appellate Court that the report of Local Commissioner demonstrated that the room in the ground floor over Khasra No. 560/1 was not in possession of the defendants but was in possession of the plaintiffs themselves. It was held by learned Appellate Court that as the room comprised in the ground floor over Khasra No. 560/1 was in possession of the plaintiffs themselves, they were not entitled for possession of the same. On these basis, learned Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court. 9. It was held by learned Appellate Court that as the room comprised in the ground floor over Khasra No. 560/1 was in possession of the plaintiffs themselves, they were not entitled for possession of the same. On these basis, learned Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court. 9. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs filed the present appeal, which was admitted on 27.08.2004 on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the learned Lower appellate Court could have appointed a commissioner to determine the possession of the parties, which is purely a judicial function to be determined only by the Court on the basis of the evidence oral and documentary led by the respective parties? 2. Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court after having visited the spot and becoming a witness to the same, should have decided the case? 3. Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court could have decide the case solely on the basis of the report of the local Commissioner? 4. Whether the Lower Appellate Court ought to have relied upon the plan (Tatima) prepared pursuant to the decree in Civil Suit No. 172 decided on 7.6.1987 for the exact location of the property in dispute and not the Tatima prepared by the Local Commissioner which admittedly was not in consonance and did not tally with the earlier Tatima? 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case as well as judgments passed by both learned Courts below. 11. A perusal of judgment passed by learned Appellate Court demonstrates that while allowing the appeal learned Appellate Court heavily depended upon the report filed by the Local Commissioner who demarcated the suit land during the pendency of the appeal i.e. Naib Tehsildar, Chamba. Para-13 of the judgment so passed by learned Appellate Court is quoted herein below:- “Thus demarcation of Khasra number 560/1 and 560/2 was essential and accordingly on the request of the parties, Naib Tehsildar, Chamba went on the spot and he demarcated the disputed room. In his demarcation report, he found that plaintiffs were already in possession of one room on the ground floor. In his demarcation report, he found that plaintiffs were already in possession of one room on the ground floor. This report is not challenged on any technical ground but only on the ground that when the Court had inspected the spot, the demarcation could not be carried out thereafter, but there is no law as the demarcation was found necessary to know the location of the disputed room. Once the Local Commissioner had given the report that the plaintiffs were already in possession of one room on the ground-floor over Khasra number 560/1, they could not be held entitled to the decree of possession of the said room.” 12. A perusal of the said Para of the judgment passed by learned trial Court, demonstrates that it was held by learned Appellate Court that in his demarcation report Naib Tehsildar found plaintiffs to be in possession of one room on the ground floor. Learned Appellate Court also held that report of the Local Commissioner was not challenged on any technical ground but only on the ground that when the Court inspected the spot, the demarcation could not be carried out thereafter. Learned Appellate Court further held that once Local Commissioner had given the report that the plaintiffs were already in possession of one room on the ground floor over Khasra No. 560/1, they could not be held entitled for the decree of possession of the said room. While negating the plea of the present appellants that the commission could not have been ordered, it was held by learned Appellate Court that the commission was so ordered as it was found necessary to know the location of the disputed room and in law there was no bar that demarcation could not have been carried out by appointing of Local Commissioner. 13. In my considered view, there is an infirmity with the judgment and decree so passed by learned Appellate Court. I have already quoted Para-13 of the judgment passed by learned Appellate Court wherein it has been held by learned Appellate Court that the report so filed by the Local Commissioner was not challenged on any technical ground but only on the ground that when the Court had inspected the spot, the demarcation could not be carried out thereafter. I have already quoted Para-13 of the judgment passed by learned Appellate Court wherein it has been held by learned Appellate Court that the report so filed by the Local Commissioner was not challenged on any technical ground but only on the ground that when the Court had inspected the spot, the demarcation could not be carried out thereafter. However, a perusal of the records of learned Appellate Court demonstrates that detailed objections were filed against the report of Local Commissioner by the present appellants which were available at Page No. 127 of the record of learned Appellate Court. Record of learned Appellate Court further demonstrates that the objections so filed to the report of Local Commissioner have not been independently decided and without deciding the said objections, learned Appellate Court has adjudicated the appeal finally. 14. Record demonstrates that on 14.08.2003, learned Appellate Court passed the following order:- “Objections have been filed by Sh. H.N. Sharma, Adv. Copy supplied. For reply and consideration, to come up on 1.9.2003.” 15. Thereafter, on 06.09.2003, the case was adjourned for arguments on Local Commissioner report as well as for final arguments. However, as I have already stated that there is no independent adjudication on the objections so filed by the present appellants against the report of the Local Commissioner. 16. In my considered view when a party had filed objections to the report of Local Commissioner, it was incumbent upon learned Appellate Court to have had first decided the objections so filed against the report of Local Commissioner before deciding the appeal. This is for the reason that in case either of the party was dissatisfied with the outcome of adjudication of the objections so filed against the report of the Local Commissioner, it had a right to assail the same before learned Appellate Court finally adjudicated upon the appeal. This opportunity has been curtailed by learned Appellate Court by not deciding the objections filed against Local Commissioner’s report which in my considered view, prejudiced the case of the present appellants. This opportunity has been curtailed by learned Appellate Court by not deciding the objections filed against Local Commissioner’s report which in my considered view, prejudiced the case of the present appellants. In these circumstances, without further going into the merits of the adjudication of the case, the judgment and decree passed by learned Appellate Court is being set aside on this count alone and the case is remanded to learned Appellate Court with a direction that learned Appellate Court shall first adjudicate upon the objections so filed by the present appellants against the report of Local Commissioner and thereafter, it shall decide the appeal on merits. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 17. This appeal is allowed accordingly. Judgment and decree passed by learned Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 46 of 2002 dated 12.01.2004, are set aside and the matter is remanded back to learned Appellate Court with a direction to first decide the objections which were filed by the present appellants against the report of Local Commissioner and thereafter it shall adjudicate upon the appeal on the merits of the case. This Court has not gone into the veracity of the Local Commissioner’s report or on the merits of the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court. It is for learned Appellate Court to decide the objections so filed on the report of Local Commissioner as well as the appeal purely on the merits of the case. Parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before learned Appellate Court on 19.06.2017. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, also stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, also stands disposed of.