JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant Civil Revision Petition, stands, directed against the concurrently recorded pronouncements by both the learned Courts below, upon, Contempt Petition No. 68-VI of 2005, where under, both the learned Courts below, hence, allowed the aforesaid contempt petition, and, rendered a direction for the petitioners/contemners, being detained in civil prison, for 15 days each. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the contemners/respondents herein had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondents herein with respect to the suit land as detailed in the application. The said suit was instituted on 12.12.2003 and in the application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, vide orders rendered on 16.12.2003, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) concerned, directed the parties to lis, to, maintain status quo qua the nature of the suit land till the next date of hearing and the said order was extended from time to time. It is averred by the respondents herein/applicants that despite the status quo order, the petitioners herein/contemners themselves started construction work over the suit land after digging the foundation w.e.f. 14.4.2004 for raising pillars and stacked the construction material and completed the construction work during the pendency of the suit. Thereafter, the Local Commissioner was appointed and it was found that there exits an old house which was in Khasra No.504 and new house constructed on Khasra No.475/1 and 505/1 and said old house was repaired and extended in other numbers. It has been submitted that contemners have taken the plea that they have only carried out the repair work and they have no disobeyed the order of he court but the report of the Local Commissioner shows that the construction work was completed by contemners during the stay order, as such, they have willfully and deliberately disobeyed the order of the court and the respondent be sent to civil imprisonment and their property be attached. 3. The contemners/petitioner herein contested the contempt petition, wherein, they have admitted of theirs filing a suit for injunction against the applicants/respondents herein, wherein, both the parties were directed to maintain status quo qua the nature of the suit land but it has been denied that they have raised construction over the suit land during the pendency of the main suit, when the said order was operative. They pleaded that construction work was old one and only repairs were done. It was pleaded that the report of the Local Commissioner is not correct, as such, the application is not maintainable. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the respondents have violated the court order of the court dated 16.12.2003, as alleged? OPA 2. Relief. 5. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the latter Court hence allowed, the, contempt petition preferred there before, by the applicants/respondents herein. In an appeal preferred there from, by the contemners/petitioner herein, before the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, the latter Court dismissed, the, appeal, and, affirmed the apt findings returned by the learned trial Court. Now, the, contemners/petitioner herein, hence institute the instant Civil Revision, before this Court, wherein, they assail the findings recorded, in their impugned orders, by the learned Courts below. 6. The order alleged to be violated by the petitioners herein/contemners, is, an order rendered on 16.12.2003 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.3, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., where under, the litigating parties were directed to maintain status quo, vis-a-vis, the nature and possession, of, the suit property. During the pendency, of the aforesaid contempt petition before the learned trial Court, the latter proceeded, to, appoint, a, Local Commissioner, (i) and the Local Commissioner was directed, to, submit his report, vis-a-vis, “whether the construction is being raised on vacant land or merely repair is being carried out or on which khasra number the construction is going on”. The Local Commissioner concerned, a legal practitioner, at, District Courts, Mandi, in his report purveyed, vis-a-vis, the learned trial Court, recorded findings therein (ii) that the old house borne in Khasra No. 504 being repaired, and, extended onto other khasra numbers, as, depicted in site plan, (iii) and, further also recorded findings therein, that, the aforesaid repairs, and, new construction work being, not, more than 4 to 5 months, from the last date of inspection i.e. on 7.7.2004, given the white washing, and, cement being not totally dried. The recitals borne in the report of Local Commissioner, embodied in Ex.AW2/B, are, prima facie supported by spot map, borne in Ex.AW2/D. Ex.AW2/D was prepared by one Murari Lal, Patwari. 7. The recitals borne in the report of Local Commissioner, embodied in Ex.AW2/B, are, prima facie supported by spot map, borne in Ex.AW2/D. Ex.AW2/D was prepared by one Murari Lal, Patwari. 7. The contemners/petitioners herein meted objections, to, the report of the Local Commissioner, and, had therein rather made strivings for invalidating the same, (i) on anvil, of, it not standing supported by any valid demarcation, standing conducted, of the apt khasra numbers, thereupon, no credence being amenable to be meted, vis-a-vis, any of the findings recorded therein. Both the learned Courts below rather accepted, the, recitals borne, in, the report of the local commissioner, embodied in Ex. AW2/B, and, also proceeded to assign sanctity, vis-a-vis, spot map appended therewith, and, as embodied in Ex.AW2/D. Obviously, hence both the learned courts below invalidated the objections reared thereto, by, the petitioners/contemners. 8. This Court would validate, the, concurrent findings, as, recorded by both the learned courts below only, upon, cogent evidence making emergences, vis-a-vis, Ex.AW2/B, and, spot map embodied, in Ex.AW2/D, being grooved, upon, a, valid demarcation being conducted, of, the apt khasra numbers, especially by an authorised revenue officer. The Local Commissioner, as, aforestated is a legal practitioner, at, District Courts, Mandi, and, though at the relevant stage, he was accompanied by AW—3, the, Patwari of the Halqua concerned, who prepared Ex.AW2/D, (i) yet both the aforesaid exhibits apparently lose their apt evidentiary vigour, (ii) given AW-3, making a clear voicing qua no valid demarcation, of, the apt kahsra numbers being held, and, his further making, a, testification qua Ex.AW2/D remaining unverified, by, the Kanungo, (iii) whereas, the Kanungo concerned, being testified by him, to be, the competent revenue officer to make, a, valid demarcation of the apt khasra numbers, and, there after to mete his report. 9. 9. The effect of the aforesaid underlinings, borne in the testification of AW-3, does validate, the objections projected by the contemners/petitioners herein, vis-a-vis, the report of the Local Commissioner, borne in Ex.AW2/B, and, vis-a-vis, site plan, borne in Ex.AW2/D, (i) and, obviously hence any meteing of credence thereto by both the learned Courts below, was, unmeritworthy, (ii) besides begets a sequel qua both the learned Courts below, in, imputing sanctity, to, afore evidentiary material, despite the aforesaid exhibits, not, for the reasons afore stated, being imbued with, the, utmost evidentiary vigour, (iii) rather, thereupon, hence meteing of any credence, vis-a-vis, discard able material, by both the learned courts below, bespeaks, of, theirs hence acting with material illegality, and, gross impropriety. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is allowed, and, the concurrent orders impugned before this Court are quashed and set aside. In sequel, the contempt petition bearing No. 68-VI of 2005 is dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.