JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. Having suffered two consecutive decrees, the defendant has filed the present second appeal. 2(i). Initially the suit was filed by the respondents (plaintiffs) seeking permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendant (appellants) from 'interfering, causing nuisance and damage and discharging the dirty water of their kitchen, bathroom and latrine towards the suit land comprised in Khata Khatoni No.199/267, Khasra No.3067/2747 measuring 00-06-00 Bighas situated at Mauza Sanchuie, Pargna and Tehsil Bharmour, District Chamba'. 2 (ii). The plaint was instituted on 16.05.2009. During the pendency of this Civil Suit No.959 of 2013, the plaintiff moved an application on 22.04.2010, for appointment of local commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, to report about discharge of dirty water from kitchen, bathroom, latrine etc., onto the land of plaintiff. Defendant also agreed for appointment of the local commissioner. 2(iii). Vide order dated 5.07.2010, learned trial Court appointed Tehsildar Bharmour as the local commissioner to visit the spot and demarcate the entire suit land comprised in Khasra No.3067/2747 measuring 00-06-00 Bighas situated at Mauza Sanchuie, Pargna and Tehsil Bharmour, District Chamba. 2 (iv). In compliance to afore order, the local commissioner submitted his demarcation report dated 07.04.2011, Ex. PW2/A. After demarcating the land, the local Commissioner came to the conclusion in Paragraph-9 of his report that defendants had encroached 00-00-14 bighas (14 biswansis) out of the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 3067/2747, which he depicted as Khasra No. 3067/2747/1 measuring 0-0-6 bighas and Khasra No. 3067/2747/2, measuring 0-0-8 bighas (in all the 14 biswansis). 2 (v). Plaintiff on the basis of this demarcation report, showing defendants to have encroached 14 biswansi out of the suit land owned by him (plaintiff), with the permission of the learned trial Court, instituted an amended plaint, wherein, he inserted additional paragraph 6-A to the effect that defendant has forcibly taken possession of 00-00-14 bighas of the suit land of the plaintiff, during the pendency of the suit. Accordingly, in addition to earlier sought for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, decree for possession of 00-00-14 bighas was also prayed by the plaintiff. The written statement to the amended plaint was filed by the defendant, where, in response to the newly incorporated paragraph-6A, the demarcation report dated 07.4.2011 was alleged to be the result of connivance between revenue officials and the plaintiff. 2 (vi). Parties led their evidence. The written statement to the amended plaint was filed by the defendant, where, in response to the newly incorporated paragraph-6A, the demarcation report dated 07.4.2011 was alleged to be the result of connivance between revenue officials and the plaintiff. 2 (vi). Parties led their evidence. On the basis of pleadings and evidence led by the parties, learned trial Court, vide its judgment dated 30.04.2014, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The decree has been affirmed in appeal by the learned first Appellate Court on 18.09.2014. Feeling aggrieved against the concurrent judgments and decrees against him, the defendant has filed instant second appeal before this Court. This appeal was admitted on 01.04.2015 on following substantial question of law:- "(1) Whether on account of misappreciation of the pleadings and misreading of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record the findings recorded by learned lower appellate Court are erroneous and as such the judgment and decree impugned in the main appeal being perverse and vitiated is not legally sustainable?" 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned senior counsel for the appellants has raised only one issue in the present appeal in context of above question of law regarding mis-appreciation & misleading of evidence. The contentions of learned senior counsel are:- 4 (i). The application was moved by plaintiff seeking appointment of local commissioner for inspecting discharge of dirty water by defendants onto plaintiff's land. Whereas learned trial Court vide order dated 5.7.2010, while appointing local commissioner had wrongly directed him to demarcate the suit land. 4 (ii). Learned trial Court wrongly observed that defendant had not filed objections to the report of local commissioner, whereas same were actually filed. 4 (iii). Decision & rejection of such objections by learned first Appellate Court has deprived the defendant/appellant benefit of judgment of learned Trial Court, causing him prejudice. 4 (iv). No other point has been urged by learned senior counsel. 4 (v). Mr. Jyotirmay Bhatt, learned counsel, for the plaintiff has supported the judgments and decrees in favour of plaintiff. 5. I have carefully gone through the record. In my considered view, the contentions raised by Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned senior counsel for the appellants/defendants, vis-a-vis the question of law, merit rejection:- 5(i). 4 (v). Mr. Jyotirmay Bhatt, learned counsel, for the plaintiff has supported the judgments and decrees in favour of plaintiff. 5. I have carefully gone through the record. In my considered view, the contentions raised by Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned senior counsel for the appellants/defendants, vis-a-vis the question of law, merit rejection:- 5(i). The order dated 5.7.2010, passed by learned trial Court, appointing the local commissioner & directing him to demarcate the suit land had been accepted by the defendant. He accordingly, pursuant to this order participated in entire demarcation exercise, conducted by the local commissioner. And thereafter put his signatures in the demarcation report, treating it as correct. Having doneso, now, it is not open to the defendant to contend that local commissioner should not have been ordered to demarcate the suit land. More so, when encroachment over the suit land to the extent of 14 biswansi by the defendant has come to fore in the demarcation report. It would also be profitable to refer to the judgment passed in AIR 2003 Himachal Pradesh 87, titled as Bali Ram, vs. Mela Ram and another, wherein it was held as under:- "13. Rule 9 of Order 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter referred to as 'the Code'), empowers the Court to issue commission to make local investigation which may be required for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute. Though the object of the local investigation is not to collect evidence which can be taken in the Court, but the purpose is to obtain such evidence, which from its peculiar nature, can only be had on the spot with a view to elucidate any point which is left doubtful on the evidence produced before the Court. To issue a commission under Rule 9 of Order 26 of the Code, it is not necessary that either or both the parties must apply for issue of commission. The Court can issue local commission suo motu, if, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed necessary that a local investigation is required and is proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute. The Court can issue local commission suo motu, if, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed necessary that a local investigation is required and is proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute. Though exercise of these powers is discretionary with the Court, but in case the local investigation is requisite and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, it should be exercised so that a final and just decision is rendered in the case." 5 (ii). In any case, the plaint had been amended on the basis of the report of local commissioner with the permission of the learned trial Court. To this amended plaint, the defence in the written statement on the aspect of report of local commissioner was that the same is the result of connivance between the plaintiff and the revenue officials. It was for the defendant to prove the alleged connivance, which he failed to prove. 5 (iii). Also, no prejudice could be said to have been caused to the defendant by the learned trial Court not specifically rejecting his objections against the report of the local commissioner. True it is, that learned trial Court had erroneously observed that defendant had not filed any objection to the report of local commissioner, yet a perusal of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court shows that it has effectively dealt with the report of local commissioner. Learned trial Court also considered the fact that demarcation report Ex-PW2/A has been signed by defendant and the same was treated to be correct by him. 5 (iv). The report has also been discussed at length by the learned first Appellate Court. In fact, the objections of defendant against the report of local commissioner were discussed thread bare and rejected by learned first Appellate Court. It has been rightly held by learned first Appellate Court that the demarcation of the suit land has been carried out by the local commissioner in accordance with prescribed procedure. The report of the local commissioner is in accordance with procedure prescribed, as per instructions contained in (i) Chapter 10 Sub Clause 10.2 by the F.C. Revenue, in the H.P. Land Records Manual as well as in accordance with (ii) directions of this Court in case titled as Hari Dass Vs. The report of the local commissioner is in accordance with procedure prescribed, as per instructions contained in (i) Chapter 10 Sub Clause 10.2 by the F.C. Revenue, in the H.P. Land Records Manual as well as in accordance with (ii) directions of this Court in case titled as Hari Dass Vs. State of H.P. 1996 (2) SLC 370 & in case titled as State of H.P. vs. Laxmi Nand and others: 1992 (2) SLC 307. Due notices to both the parties as well as to the adjoining land owners were given by the local commissioner. The demarcation was conducted on the basis of triangular method after fixing three pucca points with the consent of the parties. Pucca points were verified and accepted by both the parties, whereafter, the suit land and the adjoining land was measured. Thereafter, the demarcation report was prepared, wherein, it was found that the defendant had encroached upon 14 biswansis shown in tatima as Ex.PW2/D out of the suit land owned by the plaintiff. This was admitted to be correct by the parties as well as adjoining land owners and the statements to this effect were recorded vide Ex.P2/B. After accepting the demarcation report as correct and putting signatures on the report, it is not even otherwise open for the defendant/appellant to contend that demarcation report is not correct. 5 (v). The local commissioner Shri Vijay Kumar, Tehsildar, had also stepped into witness box as PW-2 and stated that demarcation report Ext.PW-2/A is prepared in accordance with prescribed procedure. No fault with the procedure adopted by the local commissioner for demarcating the suit land could be pointed out by the defendant at any stage. It was also not the case of the defendant that he was not present on the spot or that he had not signed demarcation report treating it as correct. 5 (vi). Even in this appeal, it has not been pointed out, as to how report of the local commissioner is not in accordance with prescribed procedure & law and as to how prejudice has been caused to the defendant. 6. There has been no mis-appreciation & misreading of pleadings and evidence by the learned Courts below. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 7. No other point has been raised on behalf of the appellants. 8. 6. There has been no mis-appreciation & misreading of pleadings and evidence by the learned Courts below. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 7. No other point has been raised on behalf of the appellants. 8. In view of the above discussions, the present appeal is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.