The Himachal Pradesh High Court in Shimla has set aside a trial court’s decision that had dismissed an application seeking appointment of a Local Commissioner in a property encroachment matter. Justice Bipin Chander Negi delivered the order on September 5, 2025, while hearing a petition filed by Dhani Ram @ Dhanu against Bandi Devi.
Background
The dispute revolves around a piece of land in Mandi district where Dhani Ram sought permanent prohibitory injunction to prevent the respondent, Bandi Devi, from raising construction. Along with this, he asked for a mandatory injunction demanding demolition of any structure built during the pendency of the case.
Both sides had already concluded their evidence before the trial court. At that stage, Dhani Ram moved an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which allows the court to appoint a commissioner to carry out a local investigation, usually to clarify a factual dispute on the spot.
Bandi Devi, however, denied all allegations of encroachment and reminded the court that a demarcation had already been conducted back in 2006, which revealed no trespass. She maintained that the boundary wall stood firmly within her land.
Read also:- Chhattisgarh High Court Quashes Demolition Notice, Orders Fresh Hearing in Nagri Shop Allotment Case
Court's Observations
The trial court had dismissed the application, reasoning that since no relief for possession was sought in the main suit, and the request for appointment of a Local Commissioner was not properly worded, there was no ground to allow it.
Justice Negi disagreed strongly with this approach.
"The grounds for rejection are fallacious," he remarked.
He pointed out that focusing narrowly on technicalities instead of the larger issue of justice amounted to a hyper-technical view. According to the High Court, such rigidity was contrary to the principles of substantive justice.
The bench elaborated further, noting that the true purpose of Order 26 Rule 9 CPC is not to help a litigant gather evidence that can otherwise be produced, but to resolve factual uncertainties through local investigation when the existing record is insufficient.
The Judge Observed,
"The object is to elucidate any matter in dispute by local investigation at the spot,"
adding that a commissioner's appointment is justified only when a party is unable to produce the necessary evidence for valid reasons.
Read also:- Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation to ₹24 Lakh in Fatal Motorcycle-Bus Collision Case
Decision
In its final order, the High Court quashed the trial court's decision dated March 6, 2021, and remanded the matter back. The trial court was directed to reconsider Dhani Ram's application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC in the light of the evidence already led by both sides.
Justice Negi clarified that only if the trial court finds the available material insufficient to settle the encroachment issue, should a Local Commissioner be appointed.
The parties were asked to appear before the trial court on September 25, 2025.
Case Title: Dhani Ram @ Dhanu vs. Bandi Devi
Case Number: CMPMO No. 68 of 2021
Decision Date: 5 September 2025
