JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. 1. The present petition has been maintained by the petitioner, who, being plaintiff, has filed a civil suit against the defendants (respondents herein), in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hamirpur, H.P., seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction. In the said civil suit, the petitioner also filed an application Under Order 39, Rule 7 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for appointment of Local Commissioner, however, the learned Court below, vide impugned order dated 28.10.2016, dismissed the same, hence the present petition, whereby the petitioner has challenged the above mentioned impugned order with further prayer to quash and set aside the same. 2. Tersely, the case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 2, in utter violation of Municipal bye laws and especially in deviation of sanctioned/approved site plan by respondent No. 2 (Municipal Council), is raising construction. Respondent No. 1 is owner of the adjoining land, i.e., Khasra No. 502/258/174, to the land of the petitioner. As per the petitioner, respondent No. 2 is raising the construction without leaving proper set backs, which are required as per the Municipal bye laws, whereby blocking the light and air of the premises of the petitioner. The petitioner maintained a suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction against the respondents, wherein he has also maintained an application under Order 39, Rule 7 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for appointment of Local Commission to inspect the spot. Respondent No. 1 filed reply to the said application, wherein he has contended that he is raising the construction on his own land and as per the sanctioned/approved site plan from respondent No. 2. Rest of the contents of the application had been denied by respondent No. 1. 3. The petitioner had also approached respondent No. 2 for bringing the factum of illegal construction, being raised by respondent No. 1. Whereupon respondent No. 2 issued notice to respondent No. 1 and prior to issuance of notice, the spot was inspected by the authorities of respondent No. 2. In the said inspection deviation was found, however, respondent No. 1 did not stop from raising further construction. The petitioner again brought this fact to the notice of respondent No. 2, but no action was taken. In the said inspection deviation was found, however, respondent No. 1 did not stop from raising further construction. The petitioner again brought this fact to the notice of respondent No. 2, but no action was taken. The petitioner’s application under Order 39, Rule 7 CPC read with Section 151 CPC was dismissed by the learned Court below vide impugned order dated 28.10.2016. 4. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and the learned Counsel for respondent No. 2. 5. Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was left with no other option, but to approach the Court under Order 39, Rule 7 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, as only the Local Commissioner, if appointed by the Court, can ascertain the exact extent of illegal construction raised by respondent No. 1 and the intention of respondent No. 1, in disobeying the interim order of the learned Court below, would only be seen. He has further argued that the intention of the petitioner was not to create evidence in his favour. The petitioner has approached the learned Court below under the provisions of Order 39, Rule 7A, wherein the learned Court below was required to exercise the jurisdiction for appointment of a person for inspection of the spot. Conversely, Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has argued that the construction is being raised by him as per the approved plan on his own land and there is no order restraining him from raising the construction on his own land. He has further argued that a notice was issued by the Municipal Council on 9th November, 2016, and he replied the same and the said notice was issued after passing of the order by the learned Court below. He has argued that the construction is being raised as per the sanctioned/approved plan on his own land, thus the learned Court below while dismissing the application of the petitioner filed under order 39, Rule 7 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, has committed no mistake. On the other hand, Mr. Anil God, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 (Municipal Council) has argued that the construction is being raised as per the sanctioned/approved plan, but some deviations are found, so notice has been issued to respondent No. 1. 6. Mr. On the other hand, Mr. Anil God, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 (Municipal Council) has argued that the construction is being raised as per the sanctioned/approved plan, but some deviations are found, so notice has been issued to respondent No. 1. 6. Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate, in rebuttal has argued that the person to be appointed by the learned Court will be required to inspect the land and come to the conclusion whether the construction is being raised in violation of the bye-laws of the Municipal Council. 7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, I have gone through the record in detail. 8. It is clear from the record that the case of respondent No. 1 is that he is raising the construction on his own land and as per the sanctioned/approved plan by respondent No. 2. The order dated 24.10.2016, passed by the learned Court below is extracted hereunder: “Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that respondent no. 1 is raising construction over his own land without following legal procedure and M.C. Norms. Counsel representing respondent no. 1 has denied the aforesaid allegations and has submitted that the construction is being raised by respondent no. 1 in accordance with the approved site plan and according to the rules of Municipal Council. Considering the nature of allegations which are supported with an affidavit and nature of relief sought, respondent No. 1 is hereby restrained from raising construction without following the rules framed by the Municipal Council as per the norms till further orders. It is made clear that there is no stay on the construction of respondent No. 1 over his land if he raised the same in accordance with the legal procedure and norms of M.C.” 9. The above order makes is abundantly clear that respondent No. 1 has pleaded that he is raising the construction on his own land. Now the question remains that whether respondent No. 1 is raising the construction as per the bye-laws and norms of respondent No. 2, that is, Municipal Council. 10. The record demonstrates that respondent No. 1 is raising the construction as per the bye-laws and norms of respondent No. 2 and after passing of impugned order dated 28.10.2010 by the learned Court below, respondent No. 2 has issued notice with respect to certain deviations. 10. The record demonstrates that respondent No. 1 is raising the construction as per the bye-laws and norms of respondent No. 2 and after passing of impugned order dated 28.10.2010 by the learned Court below, respondent No. 2 has issued notice with respect to certain deviations. Now, whether those deviations exist on the spot or not, is a matter of record and will be adjudicated upon by respondent No. 2 in the proceedings and whether there is any deviation or not will be clear by the final order of Municipal Council and so there is no reason to appoint the Local Commission. The learned Court below has recorded the conduct of the petitioner as well. The petitioner had been issued notice by respondent No. 2 qua unauthorized construction raised by him in the year 2012. The petitioner is having remedy to lead his evidence before the learned Court below, but at this stage when respondent No. 1 is raising construction on his own land and as per the sanctioned/approved plan by respondent No. 2 and for the reasons discussed hereinabove, I find no illegality with the impugned order, dated 28.10.2016, passed by the learned Court below. Otherwise also, the present is not a fit case where the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is required to be exercised in favour of the petitioner, as impugned order, dated 28.10.2016, passed by the learned Court below neither amounts to final decision, nor the same is illegal or beyond jurisdiction. 11. In view of above enumerated circumstances, the present petition sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs. The parties to appear before the learned Court below on 10th August, 2017. 12. The pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stands disposed of.