Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Virinder Aggarwal, J.
Manohar Lal - Petitioner
Versus
Dipanshu And Others - Respondents
CR No.-7245-2025(O&M)
Decided On : 13-10-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner filed civil revision petition under article 227. (Para 1) |
| 2. local commissioner cannot determine possession. (Para 2) |
| 3. references to prior cases concerning local commissioner. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 4. petition dismissed; pending applications also disposed. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT :
Virinder Aggarwal, J.
1. Petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 18.08.2023, vide which, the learned Civil Judge, Palwal has dismissed the application of the petitioner for appointment of Local Commissioner i.e. Halqua Patwari to assess the physical possession of the suit property.
2. Impugned order shows that the application was dismissed by observing that it is a settled law that Local Commissioner cannot be appointed to determine that who is in possession of the suit property. Court cannot collect evidence on behalf of any of the parties. The question of possession cannot be determined by the Local Commissioner rather it is for the parties to lead necessary evidence to establish the possession.
3.Petitioner relies upon the authorities of this High Court in Jitender alias Leela versus Rashma , 2022 (2) Civil Court Cases 16, where the application was for appointment of Local Commissioner for reporting with regard to existing position of the spot in question as in that case the question involved was that defendant has started reconstruction over the property and for reporting as to if any reconstruction is carried out, Local Commissioner was appointed.
4. In Leela Ram versus Omkar , 2018 (3) PLR 256 , Local Commissioner was appointed with regard to demarcation of the suit property. The same is the position with regard to Raj Kumar versus Tarlok Singh and Others in CR No.6504 of 2018 decided on 18.01.2019 and Haryana Waqf Board versus Shanti Sarup and others , 2008 (8) SCC 671 , so all these authorities are distinguishable from the facts of the case in hand and the trial Court has not committed any illegality by not exercising the jurisdiction vested in the Court, as such, finding no merits in the present civil revision petition and the same is dismissed.
5. Since, the present petition stands dismissed, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.
The court affirmed that a Local Commissioner cannot be appointed to determine possession of property; parties must present evidence to establish their claims.
The discretion to appoint a local commissioner rests with the court, and the party must lead evidence to prove ownership and possession over the property.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation of the appointment of a Local Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC and its exercise of discretion in allowing the appo....
The court established that the refusal to appoint a Local Commissioner does not affect the rights of the parties and is not subject to revision.
An order refusing to appoint a local commissioner does not decide any issues or rights in a suit and is therefore non-revisable.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the non-maintainability of the revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, as reiterated from the law laid down in Pritam Singh's c....
The appointment of a Local Commissioner for premises inspection can be justified if it is necessary for the adjudication of the case, and the report prepared by the Local Commissioner can facilitate ....
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
