JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. This appeal has been filed by the appellants-plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2005, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, H.P., affirming the judgment and decree dated 18.04.1998, passed by learned Sub Judge, Ist Class, Court No.1, Una, H.P., whereby the suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the record, are that the appellants-plaintiffs (herein after referred to as the ‘plaintiffs’), filed a suit for possession of the land denoted by letters ABCD circumscribed by red letters in the site plan attached with the plaint being part and parcel of the land measuring 1 Kanal 12 marlas, comprised in Khewat No.190 min, Khatauni No.330 min, Khasra No.58, situated in village Jakhera, Tehsil & District Una (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit land’). It is averred by the plaintiffs that the suit land is owned and possessed by them alongwith other co-sharers; namely; Dhanwanti, Krishna, Nirmla, Kamlesh, Shublata, Kishan Dev etc. It is further averred by the plaintiffs that the defendants, being more in number and headstrong persons of the locality, forcibly encroached upon the suit land and took the possession of the same, for which they are neither entitled nor have any right to do so. It is further averred in the plaint that the possession of the defendants over the suit land is that of a trespasser. In the aforesaid background the plaintiffs filed a Civil Suit before the learned trial Court. 3. Defendants, by way of filing joint written statement, refuted the claim of the plaintiffs on the ground that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, the defendants have denied the allegations made by the plaintiffs. It is specifically pleaded by the defendants that the area denoted by letters ABCD is not a part of Khasra No.58 and the same is not in ownership and possession of the plaintiffs as pleaded in the plaint. It is averred by the defendants that the site-plan is wrong and incorrect. It is further averred by the defendants that the eastern line of Khasra Nos.54, 55 and 57 has not been depicted correctly as it has been shown to be less and thereby to decrease the area of the defendants as the dimension to the land of defendants has not been correctly shown. It is further averred by the defendants that the eastern line of Khasra Nos.54, 55 and 57 has not been depicted correctly as it has been shown to be less and thereby to decrease the area of the defendants as the dimension to the land of defendants has not been correctly shown. It is further averred by the defendants that there is no encroachment over the suit land , as alleged by the plaintiffs in the plaint, nor any forcible possession has been made by the defendants. It is averred by the defendants that the area denoted by letters ABCD is part of their land and the same is not a part of the land of the plaintiffs, hence the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief as alleged. In the aforesaid background the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. By way of replication, the plaintiffs, while denying the allegations made in the joint written statement, reaffirmed the averments made in the plaint and controverted the contrary averments made in the written statement. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether suit site ABCD is part of khasra No.58 as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD. 3. Relief.” 6. Learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 18.4.1998 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. 7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, whereby suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed, appellants-plaintiffs filed an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) assailing therein judgment and decree dated 18.4.1998 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Court No.1, Una, H.P. who, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 31.8.2005, dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs by affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. In the aforesaid background, the present appellants-plaintiffs filed this Regular Second Appeal before this Court, details whereof have already been given above. 8. This second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law: “1. Whether Impugned judgments and decrees, more particularly, judgment and decree passed by learned first appellate court below, stand vitiated, being contrary to the provisions of order 20 Rule 5 CPC? 2. 8. This second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law: “1. Whether Impugned judgments and decrees, more particularly, judgment and decree passed by learned first appellate court below, stand vitiated, being contrary to the provisions of order 20 Rule 5 CPC? 2. Whether Impugned judgments and decrees stand vitiated on account of the fact that after setting aside the report of Local Commissioner another Local Commissioner was required to be appointed more particularly when matter interse the parties pertain to ascertaining the boundary dispute?” 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. Substantial Question of Law No.1: 10. This Court, taking note of the submissions having been made by Shri Ajay Sharma, learned counsel representing the appellants-plaintiffs that the learned District Judge has failed to return distinct and separate findings on issues, while determining the correctness of judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, carefully perused the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties vis-à-vis impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. After having carefully perused the records stated above, I am afraid that aforesaid submission, having been made by Shri Ajay Sharma, learned counsel representing the appellants-plaintiffs, is correct. 11. In the instant case, on the basis of pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, learned trial Court framed specific issue that “whether suit site ABCD is part of Khasra No.58” or “whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties”. Learned trial Court also framed additional issue, after having received objections to the report of Local Commissioner filed by defendant, to the effect that “Whether the report of the Local Commissioner is liable to be set aside?”. Learned Court below, taking into consideration evidence adduced on record by respective parties, be it ocular or documentary, decided the aforesaid issues against the appellants-plaintiffs. 12. Learned Court below, taking into consideration evidence adduced on record by respective parties, be it ocular or documentary, decided the aforesaid issues against the appellants-plaintiffs. 12. Impugned judgment passed by learned first appellate Court clearly suggests that learned first appellate Court, taking note of issues framed by learned trial Court below as well as submissions/grounds of appeal and submissions having been made by learned counsel representing the parties, also formulated the point for determination i.e. “Whether the facts and circumstances brought on record before the trial Court have proved the ownership of the plaintiffs to the suit land shown as ABCD as per site plan to be a part of Khasra No.58 and thereby forcible possession by the defendants thereon and as a result thereof the conclusion dawn by the trial Court contrary to this is liable to be set aside?.” 13. This Court finds from the impugned judgment that learned first appellate Court, while exploring answer to aforesaid question, has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter meticulously. Learned first appellate Court, while concurring with the findings returned by learned trial Court, has dealt with entire evidence and by no stretch of imagination it can be said that learned first appellate Court has failed to record distinct and separate findings on all the issues. Though this Court, after having carefully gone through the findings returned by learned first appellate Court, is convinced and satisfied that qua each and every issue specific and distinct findings have been returned by learned first appellate Court and even otherwise also it is well settled that appellate Court, while concurring with the findings returned by trial Court need not give reasons in detail. In this regard, learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Harphool Singh (Dead) through his LRs, (2000)5 SCC 652 , to state that it was incumbent upon the learned first appellate Court being last facts finding Court to consider all the issues and then decide the same by assigning reasons. 14. Hon’ble Apex Court in Laliteshwar Prasad Singh vs. S.P. Srivastava, (2017)2 SCC 415 , has specifically held that appellate Court is final Court of facts and as such its judgment must reflect application of mind and must record its findings supported by reasons. 14. Hon’ble Apex Court in Laliteshwar Prasad Singh vs. S.P. Srivastava, (2017)2 SCC 415 , has specifically held that appellate Court is final Court of facts and as such its judgment must reflect application of mind and must record its findings supported by reasons. Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, taking note of the earlier judgment passed in Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001)3 SCC 179 , has held as under: “13. An appellate court is the final court of facts. The judgment of the appellate court must therefore reflect court’s application of mind and record its findings supported by reasons. The law relating to powers and duties of the first appellate court is well fortified by the legal provisions and judicial pronouncements. Considering the nature and scope of duty of first appellate court, in Vinod Kumar v. Gangadhar (2015) 1 SCC 391 , it was held as under:- “12. In Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC 179 , this Court held as under: (SCC pp. 188-89, para 15) “15. … The appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. First appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate court. … while reversing a finding of fact the appellate court must come into close quarters with the reasoning assigned by the trial court and then assign its own reasons for arriving at a different finding. This would satisfy the court hearing a further appeal that the first appellate court had discharged the duty expected of it.” The above view has been followed by a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Madhukar v. Sangram (2001) 4 SCC 756 , wherein it was reiterated that sitting as a court of first appeal, it is the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. 13. In H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith (2005) 10 SCC 243 , this Court stated as under: (SCC p. 244, para 3) “3. 13. In H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith (2005) 10 SCC 243 , this Court stated as under: (SCC p. 244, para 3) “3. The first appeal has to be decided on facts as well as on law. In the first appeal parties have the right to be heard both on questions of law as also on facts and the first appellate court is required to address itself to all issues and decide the case by giving reasons. Unfortunately, the High Court, in the present case has not recorded any finding either on facts or on law. Sitting as the first appellate court it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording the finding regarding title.” 14. Again in Jagannath v. Arulappa (2005) 12 SCC 303 , while considering the scope of Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 303, para 2) 15. Again in B.V. Nagesh v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy (2010) 13 SCC 530 , this Court taking note of all the earlier judgments of this Court reiterated the aforementioned principle with these words: (SCC pp. 530-31, paras 3-5) “3. How the regular first appeal is to be disposed of by the appellate court/High Court has been considered by this Court in various decisions. Order 41 CPC deals with appeals from original decrees. Among the various rules, Rule 31 mandates that the judgment of the appellate court shall state: (a) the points for determination; (b) the decision thereon; (c) the reasons for the decision; and (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled. 4. The appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. The first appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate court. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate court. Sitting as a court of first appeal, it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. The first appeal is a valuable right and the parties have a right to be heard both on questions of law and on facts and the judgment in the first appeal must address itself to all the issues of law and fact and decide it by giving reasons in support of the findings. (Vide Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC 179 , SCC p. 188, para 15 and Madhukar v. Sangram (2001) 4 SCC 756 SCC p. 758, para 5.) 5. In view of the above salutary principles, on going through the impugned judgment, we feel that the High Court has failed to discharge the obligation placed on it as a first appellate court. In our view, the judgment under appeal is cryptic and none of the relevant aspects have even been noticed. The appeal has been decided in an unsatisfactory manner. Our careful perusal of the judgment in the regular first appeal shows that it falls short of considerations which are expected from the court of first appeal. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the claim of both parties, we set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the High Court and remand the regular first appeal to the High Court for its fresh disposal in accordance with law.” 14. The points which arise for determination by a court of first appeal must cover all important questions involved in the case and they should not be general and vague. Even though the appellate court would be justified in taking a different view on question of fact that should be done after adverting to the reasons given by the trial judge in arriving at the finding in question. When appellate court agrees with the views of the trial court on evidence, it need not restate effect of evidence or reiterate reasons given by trial court; expression of general agreement with reasons given by trial court would ordinarily suffice. When appellate court agrees with the views of the trial court on evidence, it need not restate effect of evidence or reiterate reasons given by trial court; expression of general agreement with reasons given by trial court would ordinarily suffice. However, when the first appellate court reverses the findings of the trial court, it must record the findings in clear terms explaining how the reasonings of the trial court are erroneous.” (Emphasis supplied) 15. In the case at hand, learned first appellate Court, who concurred with the findings returned by learned trial Court, was not expected to reiterate reasons given by trial Court, rather mere expression of general agreement with the reason given by the trial Court was sufficient. Moreover, in the instant case, as clearly emerge from the reading of impugned judgment passed by the first appellate Court that it has dealt with each and every issue involved in the case and as such there is no force in the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant that first appellate Court has failed to discuss the entire evidence of parties as required in terms of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Harphool Singh’s case supra. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. Substantial Question of Law No.2: 16. Appellants-plaintiffs preferred suit for possession against the respondents-defendants claiming themselves to be the owners in possession alongwith other co-sharers, as claimed in the plant, of the land as denoted by letters ABCD circumscribed in red letters as per site plan qua the suit land as detailed hereinabove. 17. Plaintiffs further claimed that defendants forcibly encroached upon the suit land without any right, title and interest and as such status of defendants is of trespasser. Whereas, defendants, while refuting the aforesaid claim of the appellants-plaintiffs, as made in the plaint, denied that suit land as described hereinabove is part of Khasra No.58 and same is in ownership and possession of the plaintiffs. Respondents-defendants specifically claimed that eastern line of Khasra Nos.54, 55 and 57 have not been given correctly, as a result of which, there has been decrease in the area of defendants. 18. Apart from adducing oral evidence, appellants-plaintiffs also adduced documentary evidence on record to prove their claim as set up in the plaint. Respondents-defendants specifically claimed that eastern line of Khasra Nos.54, 55 and 57 have not been given correctly, as a result of which, there has been decrease in the area of defendants. 18. Apart from adducing oral evidence, appellants-plaintiffs also adduced documentary evidence on record to prove their claim as set up in the plaint. Before taking note of evidence, it may be relevant to take note of the fact that defendants had initiated proceedings before Consolidation Officer, Una for correction of dimensions (karukans) of Khasra Nos.55 and 59, which was registered as Misal No.4/85 (Ex.O-1). It also emerge from Ex.O-1 that dimensions to defendants’ land adjoining to suit land towards Khasra Nos.55, 56 and 59 and eastern line dimensions of Khasra No.55 were ordered to be corrected as 16 karmas instead of 14 karmas by order of competent authority and accordingly same was incorporated in the revenue record vide mutation No.3977, as is clearly evident from copy of field book istemal for the year 1971-72. 19. Similarly, this Court finds from the record that being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the aforesaid order having been passed by Consolidation Officer on the application for correction filed by defendant Shri Om Parkash, appellants-plaintiffs had preferred revision petition under Section 54 of the H.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, which was registered as case No.378/85 (Ex.O4), Director Consolidation of Holdings vide order dated 14.11.1986 upheld the order of Consolidation Officer and held that correction of ‘karukans’, as ordered by Consolidation Officer, is correct. It is undisputed before this Court that the aforesaid order dated 14.11.1986 (Ex.O4) was never laid challenge by appellants-plaintiffs in any Court of law, as a result of which it has attained finality. 20. In the instant case, appellants-plaintiffs, while making an attempt to prove their case, placed heavy reliance upon report submitted by Local Commissioner Ex.DX/A; namely; Ram Rattan i.e retired Consolidation Officer. The aforesaid Local Commissioner was appointed by the trial Court during the pendency of the trial, keeping in view the boundary dispute interse parties. Vide aforesaid report, having been submitted by Local Commissioner; namely; Ram Rattan, defendants shown to have encroached upon 8-10 marlas of land of plaintiffs. Since aforesaid report was not acceptable to the defendants, they preferred objections to assail the same. Vide aforesaid report, having been submitted by Local Commissioner; namely; Ram Rattan, defendants shown to have encroached upon 8-10 marlas of land of plaintiffs. Since aforesaid report was not acceptable to the defendants, they preferred objections to assail the same. Learned court below, taking note of the objections filed by the defendants as well as statement having been made by Shri Ram Rattan OW-1, set aside the report of the Local Commissioner. 21. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants-defendants, while referring to aforesaid report submitted by Local Commissioner, Ram Rattan, strenuously argued that since demarcation, report whereof is contained in Ex.DX/A, was conducted on spot strictly in accordance with law as well as instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner, there was no occasion for the Court below to set aside the same. 22. Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel representing the defendants-respondents, while refuting the aforesaid submissions having been made by Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate, invited the attention of this Court to the report of the Local Commissioner Ex.DX/A as well as statement of Ram Rattan OW-1, to demonstrate that the Local Commissioner himself admitted in examination-in-chief that defendants had handed over the copy of order of Director, Consolidation of Holdings, whereby order issued for correction of dimensions to Khasra Nos.55 and 59 was upheld, but, Local Commissioner failed to take note of corrections, as ordered by Director Consolidation, while carrying out demarcation on the spot. In the instant case, Local Commissioner specifically admitted that while carrying out demarcation on spot, he has taken into consideration the eastern line of dimensions of Khasra No.55 as 14 karmas and he cannot say what would have been the fate of demarcation if he had taken the dimension as 16 karmas instead of 14 karmas so as to conclude whether encroachment is made out or not. 23. OW-1 Ram Rattan also admitted before the Court below that he had not recorded the statements of parties or their counsel before starting demarcation Local Commissioner, as referred above, while denying that consolidation proceedings had already taken place at that place and demarcation has always done in square system, voluntarily stated that demarcation by square system taken place in the plain area, whereas demarcation for hilly area is required to be done in rectangular method. It also emerge from his statement that he had not fixed pucca points before carrying out demarcation on spot by consulting revenue record of villages Bhatoli and Bangarh, but he voluntarily stated that there was no need to fix the union points of the village as he had duly verified the corners of the village fields by doing demarcation by diagonal method. Most importantly, the aforesaid witness feigned ignorance to the fact that if the eastern line of Khasra No.55 is taken as 16 karmas instead of 14 karmas, then there would be no encroachment, as alleged by the plaintiffs. 24. This Court, after having carefully perused statement of Local Commissioner, namely, Ram Rattan OW-1 vis-à-vis demarcation report Ex.D-1 and impugned judgment of trial Court, sees no reason to agree with the contentions/submissions made by Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel representing the appellants-plaintiffs that the Court below ought to have accepted the report of Local Commissioner while ascertaining the correctness of claim, as put forth by the plaintiffs in their plaint. Report of Local Commissioner has been rightly held to be in contravention of the Rules and procedure to be followed by the Local Commissioner. 25. In the instant case, as has been discussed above, factum with regard to order passed by Director Consolidation under Section 54 of the H.P. Consolidations of Holdings Act was brought to the notice of Local Commissioner before fixing pucca points, but that was not taken into consideration. Once aforesaid order passed by Director, Consolidation had attained finality, it was incumbent upon Local Commissioner to take into consideration the eastern line to the dimension of Khasra No.55 as 16 karmas instead of 14 karmas. As far as another contention put forth by Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel representing the appellants-defendants that since report of the Local Commissioner was set aside by the Court below it ought to have issued a new commission to ascertain the boundary dispute interse parties, this Court deems it fit to take note of provisions contained in Order 26 Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure which reads as under:- “Order 26, Rule-14(3):- (14) Procedure of Commissioner.- (1) ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... (2) ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... (2) ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... (3) Where the court confirms or varies the report or reports it shall pass a decree in accordance with the same as confirmed or varied; but where the court sets aside the report or reports it shall either issue a new commission or make such other order as it shall think fit.” 26. The aforesaid provisions of law suggests that in case Court set aside the report of Local Commissioner, it shall either issue a new commission or make such other order as it shall think fit. Admittedly, in the instant case learned trial Court, after setting aside report of Local Commissioner, has not appointed new commission, but same may not be sufficient to conclude that judgment passed by the trial Court is illegal. Careful perusal of aforesaid provisions, as contained in Order 26 Rule 14(3) CPC, clearly suggests that after rejection of report of the Local Commissioner, Court can either issue a new commission or pass other order as it deems fit. In the instant case, learned trial Court though rejected the report of Local Commissioner, Ram Rattan (OW-1), wherein admittedly defendants were shown to have encroached upon suit land, but it proceeded to dismiss the suit of the plaintiffs on the basis of other evidence, which even in the opinion of this Court was sufficient to conclude that there is no encroachment on the part of defendants over the suit land. 27. Apart from aforesaid report of demarcation, Ex.DX/A, there are reports of Local Commissioner Ex.DX and DY, dated 5.5.1991, including map Ex.OW-1/A and demarcation report as contained in Ex.OW-2/A, which has been admittedly carried out by revenue authorities. Defendant, while proving the aforesaid demarcation report, has specifically stated that same was carried out strictly in accordance with law associating the appellants-plaintiffs, but at no point of time objections, if any, were preferred by the appellants-plaintiffs qua the same. 28. Sohan Lal, Kanungo (Settlement) was also examined as OW-2, who has categorically deposed that he demarcated the suit land in case No.25 of 86, decided on 7.6.1986, titled: Om Parkash vs. Kishan Dev. While deposing before Court below, he specifically stated that demarcation at spot was carried out strictly in accordance with law. 28. Sohan Lal, Kanungo (Settlement) was also examined as OW-2, who has categorically deposed that he demarcated the suit land in case No.25 of 86, decided on 7.6.1986, titled: Om Parkash vs. Kishan Dev. While deposing before Court below, he specifically stated that demarcation at spot was carried out strictly in accordance with law. This Court, after having gone through the evidence, which has been led on record by the defendants, sees substantial force in the arguments of Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned counsel representing the respondents-defendant, that Court below could only appoint new commission in case there was no other evidence to adjudicate the controversy at hand. 29. True, it is that dispute interse parties is purely of boundary dispute and same could be adjudicated effectively and properly after calling report of Local Commissioner. In the instant case since demarcation report relied upon by plaintiffs was not found to be in accordance with law, Court below had an option of appointing new Local Commissioner, but since there was overwhelming evidence available on record suggestive of the fact that there is no encroachment over the suit land by the defendants, as alleged in the plaint, learned Court rightly proceeded to decide the suit on the basis of pleadings as well as evidence available on record. Otherwise also, as has been taken note of, there was another report of demarcation i.e. Ex.OW-2/A carried out on the spot by the revenue authorities, which was never assailed by the appellants-plaintiffs. 30. Leaving everything aside, once it stands duly proved on record that Consolidation Officer had passed correction order regarding karukarans regarding Khasra Nos.55 and 59, which was further upheld by the Director Consolidation of Holdings, there was no occasion for the appellants-plaintiffs to rake up the same controversy by instituting the present suit. Since, there is a clear cut admission on the part of Ram Rattan Local Commissioner that he had not taken into consideration dimensions of Khasra No.55 as 16 karmas, learned Court below has rightly not placed any reliance upon the same as demarcation, if any, of spot after passing of order by Director Consolidation could be made by Local Commissioner taking into consideration dimensions as 16 karmas not as 14 karmas. 31. Since findings returned by the Consolidation Authorities were not laid challenge by the appellants-plaintiffs, it will operate as res judicata in the subsequent proceedings. 31. Since findings returned by the Consolidation Authorities were not laid challenge by the appellants-plaintiffs, it will operate as res judicata in the subsequent proceedings. In this regard reliance is placed upon Shri Dev Raj vs. Shri Mansha Ram, Latest HLJ 2002 (HP) 1222. 32. In the aforesaid background, this Court also carefully perused law cited by learned counsel representing the appellants-plaintiffs in cases; Vishwa Nath vs. State of Himachasl Pradesh and another, 2016(2) Shim.L.C. 1001 , Braham Dutt vs. Prem Chand and Otehrs, 2000(1) S.L.J. 431, Bali Ram vs. Mela Ram and another, 2002(3) Shim.L.C. 131 and Haryana Waqf Board vs. Shanti Sarup and Others, (2008)8 SCC 671 . 33. Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in the aforesaid judgments have repeatedly held that when ever there is confusion about the identity of the suit land, exact position can be ascertained after investigation on spot by ascertaining factual position existing on the spot by issuing a Commission under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There cannot be any quarrel with regard to aforesaid proposition of law that once Court finds doubt about correctness of demarcation, it should appoint Local Commissioner to find out exact position on spot. 34. In the instant case, it is not the case of the appellants-plaintiffs that Court below failed to appoint Local Commissioner in terms of Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, but question is whether Court in given facts and circumstances ought to have appointed fresh Commission after rejection of report of Local Commissioner appointed by it. 35. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that since there was another demarcation report adduced on record by defendants, which was never laid challenge by the appellants-plaintiffs, Court had option to decide the dispute either by appointing new Commission or placing reliance upon the another demarcation report adduced on record by the defendants. Since, in the instant case, there was another evidence, on the basis of which controversy at hand could be decided by court below ignoring report of Local Commissioner appointed by it, learned court below committed no illegality by not issuing new Commission. Substantial question is answered accordingly. 36. This Court is fully satisfied that both the Courts below have very meticulously dealt with each and every aspect of the matter and there is no scope of interference, whatsoever, in the present matter. Substantial question is answered accordingly. 36. This Court is fully satisfied that both the Courts below have very meticulously dealt with each and every aspect of the matter and there is no scope of interference, whatsoever, in the present matter. Since both the Courts below have returned concurrent findings, which otherwise appears to be based upon proper appreciation of evidence, this Court has very limited jurisdiction/scope to interfere in the matter. In this regard, it would be apt to reproduce the relevant contents of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Laxmidevamma and Others vs. Ranganath and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 264 , to case supra, wherein the Court has held as under: “16. Based on oral and documentary evidence, both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiffs have established their right in A schedule property. In the light of the concurrent findings of fact, no substantial questions of law arose in the High Court and there was no substantial ground for reappreciation of evidence. While so, the High Court proceeded to observe that the first plaintiff has earmarked the A schedule property for road and that she could not have full-fledged right and on that premise proceeded to hold that declaration to the plaintiffs’ right cannot be granted. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by the High Court unless the findings so recorded are shown to be perverse. In our considered view, the High Court did not keep in view that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, are based on oral and documentary evidence and the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained.” (p.269) 37. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality and infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, which are based upon proper appreciation of evidence, be it ocular or documentary, adduced on record. Hence, the present appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. 38. Interim order, if any, is vacated. All the miscellaneous applications are disposed of.