JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, District Una (HP) on 30.08.2005, whereby he allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Court No.1, Una, H.P., on 16.04.1999 and the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was ordered to be decreed by the learned first appellate Court. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as the plaintiffs and defendants. 2. Facts, in brief, as are necessary for the adjudication of this case are that the plaintiff (since deceased) filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from cutting the mango tree and further from removing wood of the two ‘sheesham’ tree lying on the spot already cut forcibly by the defendants situated in area of land measuring 17 Marlas, Khewat No. 5 min, Khatauni No. 12, Khasra No. 351, situated in Village Bhadori, Sub-tehsil Haroli, District Una. The plaintiff claimed that she had been deriving benefit out of these trees, but the defendants, who were having their adjoining land comprised in Khasra No. 352 and also having no right, title and interest over the suit land including the aforesaid ‘sheesham’ trees, had forcibly felled them and were now threatening to cut down the Mango tree. Hence, the suit. 3. The defendants contested the suit admitting the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. However, the existence of the trees over the suit land was denied and it was further pleaded and claimed that the disputed trees infact existed over the land comprised in Khasra No. 352 which was in the ownership and possession of the defendants as per the demarcation carried out by the Field Kanungo. It was, therefore, denied that the defendants had forcibly cut and removed the trees from the suit land and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. The plaintiff denied the plea of the defendants in the replication and thereafter the learned trial Court on 26.12.1990 framed the following issues:— “1. Whether the mango tree and two sheesham trees were standing over the suit land as alleged? OPP. 2. If issue No. 1 proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? Whether the mango tree and two sheesham trees were standing over the suit land as alleged? OPP. 2. If issue No. 1 proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD. 4. Relief.” 5. After recording the evidence and appreciating the same, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff by relying upon the report of the Local Commissioner, however, the learned first appellate Court discarded the report of the Local Commissioner and allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. 6. On 30.11.2005, this appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:— “1. Whether the Lower Appellate Court has committed grave procedural illegality in not calling for the report of the trial Court on the objections filed by the plaintiff to the report of the Local Commissioner, and while determining the said objections itself proceeded to set aside the said demarcation on highly erroneous and perverse considerations, especially when the plaintiff herself was satisfied with the report and appended her thumb impression in token of acceptance of the said report? 2. Whether the Lower Appellate Court has committed grave error of jurisdiction and law in not appointing fresh Local Commissioner, when the dispute between the parties was a boundary dispute and could only be determined by demarcation by ignoring the provisions contained in Chapter 1-M of High Court Rule and Order (Volume-1)?” Substantial Questions of law No. 1 and 2. 7. Since both these substantial questions of law No. 1 and 2 are intrinsically interlinked and interconnected, therefore, they are taken up together for consideration and are being disposed of by common reasoning. 8. The appeal came up for hearing before this Court on 03.10.2018 and after hearing the parties and coming to a firm conclusion (on which the parties were ad idem) that the issue in question was only relating to a boundary dispute, therefore, it should at best be resolved by appointment of a Local Commissioner; Shri. Bishan Singh Thakur, retired Tehsildar, came to be appointed as a Local Commissioner, who after visiting the spot on 11.11.2008 at 11.00 a.m. was directed to demarcate not only Khasra No. 351, but also adjoining land, more particularly, Khasra No. 352 and thereafter submit his report to this Court. It was further made clear that initially the fee of the Local Commissioner which was fixed at Rs. 25,000/- would be borne equally by the parties (Rs. 12,500/- each), however, at the time of final decision, this amount shall be borne entirely by the losing party. 9. In compliance to the aforesaid directions, the Local Commissioner submitted his report wherein he has found the mango tree to be standing on the erstwhile Khasra No.352, now Khasra No.876/1, which is owned by the defendants/appellants. As regards ‘Sheesham’ trees, it was observed that since there was no stump found at the spot, therefore, no finding qua the same could be rendered. 10. None of the parties has filed objections to the report of the Local Commissioner. A perusal of the report shows that the demarcation has been carried out strictly in accordance with the High Court Rules and Orders and even the plaintiffs/respondents for that matter have not disputed the said fact. Accordingly, the report of the Local Commissioner is accepted. 11. The substantial questions of law, referred supra, are accordingly answered by accepting the report of the Local Commissioner. 12. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the findings recorded by the learned first appellate Court are set aside and that of the learned trial Court are restored, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. 13. However, before parting, it needs to be observed here that since the report has gone against the plaintiffs/respondents, they are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 12,500/- to the defendants/appellants within a period of four weeks, failing which it shall be open to the defendants/appellants to recover the same from the plaintiffs/respondents by filing an execution and it shall also be open to the defendants/appellants to claim not only the amount in question, but also claim costs of such proceedings.