JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral) - Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 13.08.2024 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala vide which the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Section 151 CPC for appointment of Local Commissioner has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent had filed a suit for permanent injunction and there is a dispute regarding identity of the property and the Local Commissioner previously appointed by the Court had not carried out the demarcation in the presence of the petitioner and thus, a prayer has been made that another Local Commissioner be appointed. It is further submitted that the impugned order vide which the said application for appointment of second Local Commissioner has been dismissed is illegal and deserves to be set aside and the application filed by the petitioner for appointment of second Local Commissioner deserves to be allowed.

3. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the paper-book and is of the opinion that the order dated 13.08.2024 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala, is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld, for the reasons which are detailed herein after.

4. It is not in dispute that the respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from dispossessing him from the suit property measuring 0 Kanal 8 Marla, part and parcel of land bearing Khasra No.82//15/2 (1-9), 82//16 (2-13), 83//19 (8-0), 20(8-0) situated at Batala Garbi Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur. A written statement was filed by the present petitioner, in which, it was stated that the plot in question was part and parcel of the Khasra No.82//27/2. An application was filed for appointment of a Local Commissioner/halka kanungo for the demarcation of the suit property and the said Local Commissioner/halka kanungo after giving due intimation to both the parties through Chowkidar, carried out the demarcation and the said demarcation was also done in the presence of Numberdar as well as several other respectable persons and the demarcation report dated 22.02.2023 was submitted on 22.03.2023. It is not disputed that no objection was filed against the said demarcation report and the Local Commissioner had appeared and had been examined and also cross-examined by the present petitioner.

5. It is only thereafter that an application was filed by the present petitioner for fresh demarcation and the said application was opposed by the respondent/plaintiff on the ground that the earlier demarcation had been carried out on 22.02.2023 in the presence of both the parties and the procedure in accordance with law had been followed and that the said Local Commissioner/halka kanungo had already been examined and cross-examined before the Court and no objection had been filed by the present petitioner against the report of the said Local Commissioner. Vide order dated 13.08.2024, the said application filed by the petitioner/defendant was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala and while dismissing the same, it was observed that a perusal of the demarcation report dated 22.02.2023, which was already on the file, would show that the said demarcation report was prepared in the presence of both the parties and in the presence of other respectables, namely, Jagdish Kundal, Gurmeet Lal, Amrik Numberdar and Bachan Lal and that the road leading towards Batala to Jalandhar was taken as pucca point while preparing the said report and that the present petitioner was also present at the time of demarcation, however, he had refused to sign the said report. It was further observed that the present petitioner/defendant had not filed any objection to the said demarcation report dated 22.02.2023, which was placed on record on 22.03.2023 and t