SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(P&H) 2384

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Daya Chaudhary, J.
Sunil – Appellant
Vs.
Suresh Kumar – Respondent
C.R. No. 437 of 2017
Decided On : 23-01-2017

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S.P. Chahar

The purpose of the appointment of a Local Commissioner is to obtain evidence that can only be had on the spot to elucidate any doubtful point left by the evidence produced before the court.

Headnote:

Local Commissioner - Appointment of Local Commissioner - Order 26, Rule 9 of CPC - [Order 26, Rule 9 of CPC] - The court discussed the provisions of Order 26, Rule 9 of CPC and emphasized that the purpose of local investigation is not to collect evidence on behalf of either party but to obtain evidence that can only be had on the spot to elucidate any doubtful point left by the evidence produced before the court. The court also cited previous judgments to support the position that no revision lies against an order passed under Order 26, Rule 9 of the Code.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants, who contested the suit on the ground of ownership and possession of the disputed land. The defendants filed an application for the appointment of a Local Commissioner to report on the existing position of the land, which was dismissed by the trial court.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the purpose of the appointment of a Local Commissioner is not to collect evidence on behalf of either party but to obtain evidence that can only be had on the spot to elucidate any doubtful point left by the evidence produced before the court. The court also held that no revision lies against an order passed under Order 26, Rule 9 of the Code.

Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court's dismissal of the application for the appointment of a Local Commissioner was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the purpose of local investigation is not to collect evidence on behalf of either party but to obtain evidence that can only be had on the spot to elucidate any doubtful point left by the evidence produced before the court. The court also cited previous judgments to support the position that no revision lies against an order passed under Order 26, Rule 9 of the Code.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as the court found no illegality or material irregularity in the trial court's decision to dismiss the application for the appointment of a Local Commissioner.

JUDGMENT :

Daya Chaudhary, J.

This revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 01.09.2016 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak, whereby, the application for appointment of Local Commissioner was dismissed.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that plaintiffs-respondents No.1 and 2 filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the present petitioners-defendants No.1 to 3. Notice in the said suit was issued to the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners filed their written statement and contested the suit on the ground that the land, in dispute, is owned and possessed by petitioners/defendants No.1 to 3. They are having possession of the suit land since the time of their ancestors. During defendant's evidence, the petitioners filed an application under Order 26, Rule 9 CPC for appointment of Local Commissioner on the ground that the defendants are taking contradictory stand regarding the suit land and the appointment of Local Commissioner was necessary to visit at the spot and get report regarding the existing position of the suit land.

3. Notice in the said application was issued to the respondents/plaintiffs and they filed their reply also. After considering the reply, the trial Court passed the impugned order dated 01.09.2016 and dismissed the application, which is subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the appointment of Local Commissioner is necessary to report about the existing position of suit land as both the parties were taking contradictory stand by way of evidence led by them. The report to be submitted by Local Commissioner would assist the Court to reach the conclusion and to decide the controversy in the case in hand. Without taking into consideration these factors, the application had been dismissed.

5. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and have also perused the impugned order.

6. The application for appointment of Local Commissioner was moved by the petitioners on the ground that there were contradictory versions relating to possession of suit land and appointment of Local Commissioner was necessary to reach to just conclusion by the trial Court. Plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 to 3 in their peaceful possession on the land, in dispute. In the plaint, the plaintiffs have stated themselves to be owner in possession over the suit property. The application for appointment of Local Commissioner has been moved to bring factual position with regard to possession over the suit property.

7. The case is at the fag end as the plaintiff-respondents have already led their evidence. Now the case is fixed for defendants evidence and some of the witnesses have already got recorded their statements. The purpose of appointment of Local Commissioner is not to collect evidence on behalf of either party as the possession is to be proved by both the parties by leading their cogent evidence.

Order 26, Rule 9 of CPC reads as under :-

"Commission to make local investigations. - In any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the market-value of any property, or the amount of any meson profits or damages or annual net profits, the Court may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court."

8. No doubt, as per said provision, the Court has ample power to appoint Local Commissioner to make local investigation, in case, the same is necessary for just decision of the case. However, the object of local investigation is not to collect the evidence on behalf of either party but the purpose is to obtain such evidence, which from its peculiar nature, can only be had on spot with a view to eluci








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top