Paramjit Sidhu vs Inderpreet Singh - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 2838

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2838

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ARUN MONGA, J.
Paramjit Sidhu – Petitioner
Versus
Inderpreet Singh & Ors. – Respondents
CR-2463 of 2023 (O&M)
Decided On : 25-04-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Bhupinder Banga, Advocate for Petitioner.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXVI Rule 9 - Appointment of Local Commissioner - Revision petition challenging orders allowing appointment of local commissioner for property demarcation in a suit for permanent injunction. The court found the order valid as necessary for effective adjudication. Dismissal of review application for lacking merit was upheld. (Paras 4-12)

(B) Judicial review - Scope - Court's role is not to substitute its judgment or interfere with the lower court’s decisions unless there is a significant legal error or material irregularity. (Paras 10-11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the appointment of a local commissioner for demarcation in a suit regarding property ownership disputes. Review application against the previous order was rejected, asserting lack of new evidence for reconsideration.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the necessity of a local investigation for effective resolution of property identification disputes, asserting there was no legal error in prior decisions.

Issues: The main issue was whether the appointment of a local commissioner was necessary for the adjudication of property identification without prejudice to the parties involved.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the appointment of a local commissioner does not create evidence but assists in clarifying disputes between parties, thereby supporting effective judicial proceedings and fulfilling the requirements of adjudication as outlined in Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. establishment of jurisdiction over property disputes. (Para 1 , 2)
2. criteria and principles guiding review applications. (Para 4 , 5)
3. local commission aids in clarifying disputes effectively. (Para 6)
4. appointment of local commissioner deemed non-prejudicial. (Para 7 , 8)
5. no basis for interference with court's valid reasoning. (Para 9 , 10)
6. final orders post-judgment and responsibilities. (Para 11 , 12)

JUDGMENT

Arun Monga, J. (Oral)

CM-7201-CII-2023

For the reasons stated in application, same is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Main case (O&M)

Petition herein inter alia is for setting aside impugned order dated 04.03.2023 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hoshiarpur whereby application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC')filed by plaintiff-respondent No.1 for appointment of local commissioner, was allowed. Further sought setting aside of impugned order dated 12.04.2023 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hoshiarpur whereby review application filed against aforesaid order dated 04.03.2023, was also dismissed.

2. The revision petition is premised on the averments that respondent No.1- plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants from raising any construction in the area of his ownership. During pendency of suit, respondent No.1- plaintiff also filed an application (Annexure P-1) under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC for appointment of local commissioner. Vide impugned order dated 04.03.2023, learned Court below allowed the aforesaid application for appointment of local commissioner.

2.1. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that impugned order has been passed without considering the aspect that without filing suit for partition, respondent No.1-plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction in respect of the un-partitioned land against co-sharers and yet, learned Court below allowed his application seeking appointment of local commissioner. He would further contend that petitioner, being an NRI, did not inform his counsel on time that earlier also demarcation was done. Therefore, after obtaining copy of demarcation, an application for review of aforesaid order dated 04.03.2023 along with prayer to stay proceedings of Local Commission till final disposal of application for review, was filed. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hoshiarpur vide impugned order dated 12.04.2023 dismissed the said review application without considering the fact of earlier demarcation.

3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the case file.

4. Impugned order dated 04.03.2023 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hoshiarpur, is premised, inter alia, on the following reasoning:

"3. Having heard Ld. Counsels for both the parties and having perused the pleadings of the parties on record, this court is of the view that plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from raising any further construction in the area shown in letters ADEF in the site plan attached with the plaint. Similarly, the defendant No.1 also filed the civil suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into the peaceful and legal possession of Paramjit Sidhu. In both the suits, the main dispute between the parties is only regarding the identification of property and the said dispute can be resolved by demarcation of suit property. Thus, for the complete and effective adjudication of the matter in dispute between the parties, the appointment of the revenue expert is necessary. Appointment of Local Commissioner in such a case does not amount to creation of evidence. As per Order 26, Rule 9 CPC 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, the court may issue a commission to such person as it things fit dir