Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Permod Kohli, J.
Vinod Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
Gram Panchayat of Village Kheri Naru and others - Respondents
Civil Revision No. 2776 of 2007.
Decided On : 30 August, 2007
Local Commissioner - Possession Dispute - The court held that the appointment of a Local Commissioner is not to procure evidence for any particular party in a possession dispute. The question of possession should be established by the parties through necessary evidence, and the court should not interfere with the trial court's exercise of judicial discretion unless it has been capriciously or perversely exercised.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought appointment of a local commissioner to ascertain possession over a disputed property. The trial court rejected the application, stating that the appointment of a local commissioner cannot decide the question of possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no legal or factual infirmity in the trial court's decision, as the question of possession should be established by the parties through necessary evidence. The court dismissed the civil revision accordingly.
Issues: Appointment of local commissioner in possession dispute
Ratio Decidendi: The appointment of a local commissioner is not to procure evidence for any particular party in a possession dispute. The question of possession should be established by the parties through necessary evidence.
Final Decision: The civil revision was dismissed.
Permod Kohli, J. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.4.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Karnal, rejecting the application of the petitioner for appointment of local commissioner to assertain the possession over the disputed property. The present petitioner in this Court is one of the plaintiffs. He filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of local Commissioner on the ground that the plaintiffs are owners in possession over the area measuring 0 Bhiga 9 Biswas in khewat No. 294 and their possession is uninterrupted. They also claimed possession over another bara having area 0 Bigha 4 Biswas pertaining to khewat No. 294. It was stated that they are using the area for storing cow dung cakes, tethering cattle, storing kurdies etc. The Local commissioner was sought to be appointed to ascertain actual and factual position on the spot. The Trial Court vide the impugned order has rejected the same. The Trial Court is of the opinion that the Local Commissioner can not be appointed to decide the question of possession. The validity of this order has been assailed on the ground that the trial Court should have appointed Local Commissioner to ascertain the possession and collect proper evidence. I am unable to accept this contention. The object to appoint Local Commissioner is not to procure evidence for any particular party.
2. In the present case, both the parties are claiming possession. The question of possession cannot be ascertained by appointment of Local Commissioner. It is for the parties to lead necessary evidence to establish possession. I do not find any legal and factual infirmity in the impugned order, particularly when the trial Court has exercised its judicial discretion. No interference is called for in exercise of judicial discretion, unless the same has been exercised capriciously or is request of perversity.
No merits.
This Civil Revision stands dismissed accordingly.
Revision dismissed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
