JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 22. 8. 2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Chamba, in Civil Appeal No. 46/2002, whereby objections having been filed by the respondents-plaintiffs (''respondents'' hereinafter) to the report of local commissioner dated 15. 7. 2003, came to be allowed and report dated 15. 7. 2003 prepared by Naib Tehsildar, Chamba, was set aside, petitioners-defendants have approached this Court by way of instant proceedings. 2. Necessary facts as emerge from the record are that one Shri Anirudh (deceased) and others, plaintiffs before the trial Court, filed a civil suit bearing No. 59/97 against one Kamla (since deceased) and others, for possession of one room in the ground floor situate over Khasra No. 560/1, with further prayer to restrain the defendants from blocking the entrance/staircase of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs pleaded before the Court below that they are recorded as joint owner-inpossession of the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 559 and 560 measuring 108 square yards and 2 square feet, which property stood already partitioned between the parties through a decree dated 7. 6. 1977 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Chamba. Possession of aforesaid property was received by the plaintiffs to the extent of their share after passing of the decree. Deceased Hiru, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs was allotted property comprised in Khasra Nos. 559, 560/1 and 558/1 and since then plaintiffs continued to be in possession of the same. However, one room in the ground floor was temporarily given to the defendants for use as kitchen in the building comprised in Khasra No. 560/1 with an understanding that the defendants would vacate it as and when required by the plaintiffs. There was a staircase leading to the upper storey from the ground floor adjoining to the said room occupied by the defendants but defendants forcibly took possession of aforesaid staircase and they were not allowing plaintiffs to use the same. Defendants were requested time and again to hand over the vacant possession of the said room but they failed to do so as such, civil suit as detailed herein above came to be instituted at the behest of the plaintiffs for decree of mandatory injunction. 3. Defendants were requested time and again to hand over the vacant possession of the said room but they failed to do so as such, civil suit as detailed herein above came to be instituted at the behest of the plaintiffs for decree of mandatory injunction. 3. Defendants by way of written statement denied the claim of the plaintiffs and averred that one room in the ground floor and one room in the first floor were allotted to the defendants in the partition of Khasra No. 560 by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Chamba. It was admitted that predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs had filed a suit for partition which was decreed by the Court on 7. 6. 1977. Thereafter, Hiru filed an execution for possession of 1/3rd share but he died during these proceedings and present plaintiffs came to be brought on record. Partition of property comprised in Khasra Nos. 560, 561 and 559 was carried out by the local commissioner and 1/3rd share thereof was handed over to the plaintiffs. It was further asserted that out of Khasra No. 560, which consisted of a double storeyed house, Khasra No. 560/2 measuring 43 square yards and 3 square feet was allotted to the defendants, in which one room was in the ground floor and one room in the first floor and since then, defendants are in possession of one room in ground floor. However, room in the first floor, which had fallen to the share of defendants continued to be in possession of the plaintiffs, who despite requests, did not vacate the same and filed the suit to harass them. It was categorically denied that the defendants were obstructing the plaintiffs from using the staircase. It was claimed that there was a common staircase to the building comprised in Khasra No. 560/1, which had been allotted to the plaintiffs and Khasra No. 560/2 had been allotted to the defendants. 4. Learned trial Court on the basis of aforesaid pleadings, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for possession of suit property. However, the fact remains that the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court came to be assailed by way of an appeal having been filed by the defendants. During proceedings of the appeal, learned District Judge visited the spot and called for record of execution petition No. 13/79 (Civil suit No. 172 decided on 7. 6. However, the fact remains that the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court came to be assailed by way of an appeal having been filed by the defendants. During proceedings of the appeal, learned District Judge visited the spot and called for record of execution petition No. 13/79 (Civil suit No. 172 decided on 7. 6. 77 titled Hiru vs. Moti Ram). Learned District Judge after having perused the record of execution petition, found it necessary to demarcate the property and accordingly, appointed Naib Tehsildar, Chamba, as a local commissioner, who submitted his report on 15. 7. 2003. Respondents/plaintiffs (Anirudh and others) filed their objections but learned District Judge without first deciding the objections filed by respondents proceeded to decide the main appeal. Ultimately vide judgment and decree dated 12. 1. 2004 he set aside the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court. 5. Being aggrieved with aforesaid judgment passed by learned District Judge, respondents filed RSA No. 205/2004 titled Smt. Beena & ors. vs. Parbhat Bhushan & others before this Court, which was decided on 15. 5. 2017, wherein this Court, while setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, remanded the matter back to it to first decide the objections preferred by the respondents to the report of local commissioner. 6. In this background, vide impugned order dated 22. 8. 2017, objections filed by the respondents to the report of local commissioner, dated 15. 7. 2003, came to be disposed of, whereby learned District Judge, after having perused material adduced on record by the respective parties, set aside the demarcation report dated 15. 7. 2003, prepared by the Naib Tehsildar, Chamba. 7. Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, learned counsel representing the petitioners, vehemently argued that the learned court below has fallen into grave error while entertaining objections to the report of the local commissioner filed by the respondents, especially when spot inspection was ordered to be conducted on the spot with the consent of the parties. Mr. Khajuria, further contended that the report submitted by local commissioner is legal and valid and same could not be discarded by the learned Court below. Mr. Mr. Khajuria, further contended that the report submitted by local commissioner is legal and valid and same could not be discarded by the learned Court below. Mr. Khajuria, further contended that the local commissioner was appointed by the learned court to ascertain the factual position of the suit property, who, exactly on the basis of factual position existing on the spot, prepared report and such report could not be set aside. Lastly, Mr. Khajuria contended that the appellate court arrived at a wrong conclusion that the possession qua disputed premises was to be determined by the Court and not by the local commissioner because as per compromise on the basis of decree, defendants have been recorded as owner of that room. While referring to the report of the local commissioner, Mr. Khajuria contended that it has specifically come in his report that defendant Kamla is owner of the said room but the room is in possession of the plaintiffs, therefore, plaintiffs have filed the suit for possession, which was dismissed. Mr. Khajuria contended that once trial Court had come to specific conclusion that plaintiffs are not entitled for possession of the room in dispute, no reliance could be placed on the objections to the report of local commissioner filed by the respondents. While referring to the judgment passed by the trial court, learned counsel representing the petitioners contended that trial Court has categorically observed that demarcation of Khasra Nos. 560/1 and 560/2 was essential and accordingly on the request of parties, Naib Tehsildar, Chamba went to the spot and demarcated the disputed room and found that plaintiffs were already in possession of one room in the ground floor and that is why, trial court came to the conclusion that once local commissioner had given report that plaintiffs were already in possession of one room in the ground floor over Khasra No. 560/1, they could not be held entitled to decree of possession qua said room. Mr. Khajuria further contended that bare perusal of impugned order passed by the learned District Judge clearly suggests that it has virtually set aside the judgment passed by the trial court and as such, same being contrary to the material available on record deserves to be set aside. 8. Mr. Mr. Khajuria further contended that bare perusal of impugned order passed by the learned District Judge clearly suggests that it has virtually set aside the judgment passed by the trial court and as such, same being contrary to the material available on record deserves to be set aside. 8. Mr. Karan Sharma, learned counsel representing the respondents refuted the aforesaid contentions put forth on behalf of the petitioners and stated that this Court vide judgment dated 15. 5. 2017 passed in RSA No. 205 of 2004, specifically remanded the matter back to the learned District Judge to decide the objections having been filed by the respondents against the report of the local commissioner and as such, there is no force in the arguments of the learned counsel representing the petitioners that since local commissioner was appointed with the consent of the parties, learned District Judge could not entertain objections, if any, against the report submitted by the local commissioner. Mr. Sharma, further contended that it is admitted case of the parties that the suit property was partitioned amongst cosharers through decree passed by the learned Sub Judge, Chamba, on 7. 6. 1977 in Civil Suit No. 172 and thereafter, parties were put to their respective possession as per their entitlements. Learned counsel further contended that the judgment and decree passed by Senior Sub Judge, Chamba were not assailed in any competent Court of law and as such, same have attained finality and are binding upon the parties. Lastly Mr. Sharma, contended that since allotment of suit property to Hiru, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, was not assailed by the defendants by filing appeal and no challenge was laid to the delivery of possession to the plaintiffs in execution proceedings, there was no need to get the suit property demarcated afresh from local commissioner so as to report about shares and possession thereof. While inviting attention of this Court to the findings returned by this Court qua aforesaid aspect of the matter in RSA No. 205 of 2004 decided on 15. 5. 2017, learned counsel for the respondents contended that once learned District Judge himself had visited the spot and had perused record of execution petition No. 13/79 filed in Civil Suit No. 172 decided on 7. 6. 1977, there was no occasion for him to appoint local commissioner to ascertain the factual position on the spot. 9. 5. 2017, learned counsel for the respondents contended that once learned District Judge himself had visited the spot and had perused record of execution petition No. 13/79 filed in Civil Suit No. 172 decided on 7. 6. 1977, there was no occasion for him to appoint local commissioner to ascertain the factual position on the spot. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully 10. Having heard the parties and perused record, it is undisputed that suit property was partitioned amongst the cosharers through decree passed by Senior Sub Judge, Chamba on 7. 6. 1977 in civil suit No. 172. Similarly, perusal of copy of judgment passed by Senior Sub Judge dated 7. 6. 1977 clearly suggests that suit, filed by one Shri Hiru, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, was decreed by the Court on the basis of admission made by the defendants, whereafter execution petition was filed by Hiru for implementation of the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by civil court. It also stands proved on record that in the execution petition, Khasra Nos. 559 and 560 alongwith other property were partitioned and Hiru was delivered possession of 1/3rd share in the suit property. In partition, Khasra No. 560/1 was allotted to Hiru and during execution petition, he was given the same, whereas Khasra No. 560/2 was allotted to the defendants/petitioners. 11. Prem Lal PW-2 retired Kanungo has categorically stated that suit property comprising of one room in ground floor of building denoted by Khasra No. 560/1 was allotted to the plaintiffs in partition proceedings and its possession was taken by them during execution petition. Aforesaid witness also made available on record, report Exhibit PW-2/A, prepared by Bhagwan Chand, Naib Tehsildar. It is quite apparent from the deposition of the aforesaid witness that he had gone to the spot where parties were delivered their respective possession. Report, Exhibit PW-2/B further reveals that suit property comprising of Khasra Nos. 559, 560 and 561 was partitioned on the spot and Khasra No. 560/1 measuring 36-1 square yards was allotted to Hiru, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, while property comprised in Khasra No. 560/2 measuring 72-1 square yards was allotted to Moti, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants. Similarly, entries made in Ext. P3 also suggest that property comprising of Khasra Nos. 559, 560 and 561 was partitioned on the spot and Khasra No. 560/1 measuring 36-1 square yards was allotted to Hiru, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, while property comprised in Khasra No. 560/2 measuring 72-1 square yards was allotted to Moti, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants. Similarly, entries made in Ext. P3 also suggest that property comprising of Khasra Nos. 558 and 560 was partitioned and Khasra No. 560/1 was allotted to Hiru, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners during partition proceedings. 12. Pw-6 Bhagwant, Bailiff of the Court has categorically stated that he had gone the spot and submitted report regarding delivery of the suit property to the plaintiffs, copy of which is on record as Exhibit PW-6/A. 13. After having carefully perused the material available on record, it is quite apparent that possession of 1/3rd share of building denoted by Khasra No. 560/1 i. e. one room was delivered to the respondents/plaintiffs namely Anirudh and others. Once respondents/plaintiffs were able to prove on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence that suit property consisting of one room had fallen to the share of Hiru i. e. their predecessor-in-interest, in partition proceedings, there was no occasion for the learned court below to get the suit property demarcated afresh through local commissioner. Since allotment of suit property to Hiru, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs by way of judgment and decree passed by trial Court remained unchallenged, there was no necessity at all for the trial court to get the property demarcated through local commissioner to identify the property which was admittedly identified and delivered to the respective parties in the execution proceedings initiated at the behest of predecessor-in-interest of the respondents/plaintiffs. 14. After having perused the record and law on the point, this court finds no illegality in the findings returned by the learned District Judge to the effect that question of possession can only be determined by a court and same cannot be left with the local commissioner and as such, this Court sees no reason to differ with the findings returned by the learned District Judge, which are upheld. 15. In view of above, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. However, it is made clear that the observations made herein above shall remain confined to the validity of order dated 22. 8. 15. In view of above, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. However, it is made clear that the observations made herein above shall remain confined to the validity of order dated 22. 8. 2017 passed by learned District Judge, Chamba and same shall not have any bearing on the merits of the appeal pending before the aforesaid court, which shall be decided on its own merit, on the basis of material placed before the learned Court below.