JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, petitioner has challenged order dated 18.06.2019, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., whereby the objections filed by present petitioner against the demarcation report which demarcation was carried out of the suit property, pursuant to order which stood passed by this Court in CMPMO No.505 of 2016, titled as Prem Chand Versus Joginder Pal, stands dismissed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. A perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that after filing the objections, objector/ petitioner did not lead any evidence to substantiate the objections which were filed against the demarcation report. Further, a perusal of contents of the impugned order demonstrate that the learned Court while rejecting the objections, has held that it was specifically mentioned in the demarcation proceedings and report Ext.PW2/B that both the parties were present alongwith Patwari and in their presence, demarcation proceedings were carried out with the Jareb. Learned trial Court took note of the fact that it was specifically mentioned in the report that points A, B and C were fixed on the spot and triangle was prepared and thereafter in the presence of the parties and other persons, disputed land was demarcated in which it was found that the present petitioner, who is defendant before the learned trial Court, had encroached upon the land depicted as khasra Nos.610/516/132/1, measuring 00-00-05 biswansies in the shape of gair mumkin sehan and gair mumkin tanki pani (water tank). Learned trial Court also took note of the fact that tatima was also prepared in that regard and statements of parties and other persons were also recorded. 4. Learned counsel though tried to make an endeavour to demonstrate that said order was perverse, by stating that the parties were not explained the process of demarcation, however, on a pointed query of the Court that as to what evidence was led to substantiate this fact, he submitted that no evidence was led. 5. Another fact which is pertinent to be appreciated is that the impugned order was passed on 18.06.2019. Thereafter, the matter was listed for arguments on 02.07.2019. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now the matter is listed for arguments on 22.10.2019. 5. Another fact which is pertinent to be appreciated is that the impugned order was passed on 18.06.2019. Thereafter, the matter was listed for arguments on 02.07.2019. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now the matter is listed for arguments on 22.10.2019. There is nothing mentioned in the petition that as to why in case the petitioner was really aggrieved by this order which was passed on 18.06.2019, then the same was not assailed before this Court or before any appropriate Court of law within some reasonable time. The only inference which can be drawn from the same is that filing of the present petition is nothing, but abuse of the process of law, to delay hearing of the matter finally on the date which has been fixed by the learned trial Court. 6. In view of the observations made hereinabove, this petition is dismissed in limine. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, also stands vacated.