The order of appointing or refusing to appoint a Local Commissioner is not revisable.

Vinod K.Sharma, J.

1. This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 24.7.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pathankot vide which application moved by the petitioners for appointment of Local Commissioner has been ordered to be dismissed.

2. This revision petition is not competent in view of the law laid down by this Court in the cases of Sumer Chand Jain v. Vishnu Bhagwan Mangla, and Hari Om v. Munish Kumar, wherein this Court has been pleased to lay down that the order of appointing or refusing to appoint a Local Commissioner is not revisable.

3. Mr. G.S. Jaswal, learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of Honble Karnataka High Court in the case of Anil Kamalakar Shirodhkar v. Dudhappa Santu Patil and Anr. 2002 (2) Civil Court Cases 171 to contend that as in the present case the dispute was with regard to the encroachment, the local commissioner could be appointed for measurement of the property and to demarcate the boundaries of the property. This proposition cannot be disputed. However, once the court has refused to appoint a Local Commissioner the same can not be a subject matter of challenge in revision in view of the law laid down by this Court.

4. Thus no benefit can be drawn by the petitioners from the judgment relied upon.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners thereafter placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Suraj Kumar Jain v. Roshan Lal and Ors. (1979) 81 P.L.R. 533 to contend that when the identity of the property is in dispute between the parties then generally local commissioner should be appointed. However, it may be noticed that in that very judgment this Court has been pleased to lay down that the revision against the appointment of local commission was not competent.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners thereafter placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Fateh Singh Saihi v. State of Haryana and Ors. 1987 P.L.J. 351 to contend that if the matter is of such nature which cannot be satisfactorily proved by any other evidence then the party has a legal right to get local commissioner appointed. However, in the said judgment also the question whether revision against the order refusing to appoint a local commissioner is competent or not is not decided. No merit. Dismissed.