An order refusing to appoint a local commissioner does not decide any issues or rights in a suit and is therefore non-revisable.

JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J.

1. Present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 CPC for setting aside the impugned order dated 21.02.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat, whereby the application dated 13.02.2025 (Annexure P-4) moved by the petitioner/plaintiffs for appointment of local commissioner, by virtue of provisions enshrined under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC has been declined.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the petitioner had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the building constructed by defendants No.4 to 6 over plot No.441-R, Model Town, Panipat is illegal and had further sought mandatory injunction directing the defendants No.1 to 3 to demolish the alleged illegal construction and also to compensate the plaintiffs and for the said purpose, it is necessary to appoint the local commissioner. It is further submitted that the application filed by the petitioner for appointment of the local commissioner has been illegally dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 21.02.2025 (Annexure P-1) which order deserves to be set aside and the application filed by the petitioner, being meritorious, deserves to be allowed.

3. A perusal of the order dated 21.02.2025 (Annexure P-1) would show that the trial Court had, after taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties, observed that it is for the plaintiffs to prove their case by leading independent evidence and the Court cannot collect evidence on their behalf. It had further been observed that what the plaintiffs were wanting through the medium of the court was to collect evidence by appointing a local commissioner, which can very well be done by the plaintiffs by leading their independent evidence. It had also been observed that any report regarding existing construction, assessment of loss to the plaintiffs, estimated costs, estimated time and whether property is fit for habitation or not, would amount to collection of evidence in favour of a party, which would be injustice to the other party. In the said order, reference was made to a judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of “Banarsi Dass Vs. Sunita Rani, reported as (2017) 2 RCR (Civil) 274, in which, it was observed that the local commissioner cannot be appointed for the purpose of collection of evidence. The impugned order passed by the trial Court is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld.

4. It would be relevant to note that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of “Pritam Singh Vs. Sunder Lal”, reported as 1990 (2) PLR 191 had observed that the order refusing to appoint a Local Commissioner does not decide any issue nor adjudicates rights of the parties for the purpose of the suit and is therefore not revisable. Learned Single Judge, vide judgment dated 18.07.2022 passed in Civil Revision No.2752 of 2022 in case titled as “Harchand Vs. Karambir Singh and another”, by placing reliance upon the above-said judgment of Division Bench and also the judgment of the learned Single Bench in “Raksha Devi Vs. Madan Lal and others”, reported as [2017 (3) PLR 249], had observed that no revision would be maintainable against an order dismissing an application for appointment of a Local Commissioner. The relevant portion of the said judgment in Harchand's case (supra) is reproduced as under: -

“4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner has contended that the appointment of the Local Commissioner would be necessary in order to bring on record the existing position of the suit property.

5. Heard.

6. In the present case the ch