The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle that the revision petition was not maintainable against the order dismissing the application for appointment of a Local Commissioner, and the timing and evidence presented by the plaintiff were crucial in determining the outcome of the case.

Sabina, J.

1. The plaintiff had filed a suit for possession alleging that he was owner of the suit land to the extent of l/4th share. During the pendency of the suit, an application was filed by the plaintiff for appointment of the Local Commissioner to demarcate the suit land. Vide the impugned order dated 9.5.2009, the said application was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the plaintiff-petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the defendant had encroached upon portion of the land owned by the plaintiff. The defendant had also filed a counter claim that, in fact, the plaintiff had encroached upon the land owned by the defendant. In these circumstances, it was necessary for just decision of the case that a Local Commissioner be appointed to demarcate the land. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Pohlu Ram v. Gram Panchayat} 1980 P.L.J. 24, wherein it was held that the point in dispute as to whether the plaintiff had encroached upon the circular road of the village could only be decided by making measurements on the spot and for this purpose it was necessary to appoint a local commissioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Fateh Singh Saini v. State of Haryana and others, 1987 P.L.J. 351, wherein it was held that the party has a right to get a local commissioner appointed if the matter is such that it cannot be satisfactorily proved by other evidence.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the revision petition was not maintainable. Moreover, the application had been moved by the petitioner just to delay the decision of the case. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Balbir Kav.r and others v. Pushpa Widge and othersk, 2006(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 319, wherein it was held that if an application had been filed after a long delay to summon a local commissioner as a witness with an intention of delaying the proceedings then there was no justification for interfering in the order whereby the application was dismissed in the exercise of superintending jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent has further placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Bant Singh @ Balwant Singh and another v. Raghubir Singh and others, (2008-4)152 P.L.R. 336, wherein, in para 2, it was held as under:-

"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 Bhagvsan Mangla, 2006(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 445 and Had Om v. Minish Kumar, (2005-2)140 P.L.R. 690 wherein this Court has been pleased to lay down that the order of appointing or refusing to appoint a Local Commissioner is not revisable."

6. Learned counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Sumer Chand Jain v. Vishnu Bhagwan Mangla, (2006-2)143 P.L.R. 844, wherein, in para 3, it was held as under:-

"In two Division Bench decisions of this Court in Smt. Harvinder Kaur and another v. Godha Ram and another, A.I.R. 1979 Punjab and Haryana 76 and Pritam Singh v. Sunder Lal, (1990-2)98 P.L.R. 191; it has been held that the order refusing to appoint the Local Commissioner under Order 26, Rule 9 CPC is not revisable under Section 115 CPC, therefore, such an order should not be interfered now under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, in Hari Om v. Minish Kumar, (2005-2)140 P.L.R. 690, it was observed by this Court that if a revision petition under Section 115 CPC against the impugned order is not maintainable, then by mere change in the head note of the petition, the substance cannot be replaced to wriggle out from the rigors of law which is well settled that no revision petition under Secti