Under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, a Local Commissioner may be appointed for local investigations to resolve disputes concerning land demarcation.

MANDEEP PANNU J.

1. Present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for setting aside the impugned order dated 19.08.2025 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Abohar, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of a Local Commissioner/revenue Patwari or any other competent person to visit the spot and to submit a report regarding the actual and factual position of the suit property after demarcation, has been dismissed.

Brief Facts

2. The case set up by the petitioner is that she filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in her peaceful possession over the plot measuring 1 kanal 2 marlas, i.e. 22/120 share out of 6 kanals comprised in Khasra No. 391(6-0), Khewat No. 4, Khatauni No. 57, as per jamabandi for the year 2017–2018, situated in village Narainpura, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka. It is pleaded that originally the land in question belonged to one Sumit Kumar, who sold 22/120 share out of 6 kanals to the petitioner through a registered sale deed dated 28.06.2022. Subsequently, defendant No. 1 also TRIPTI SAINI purchased 77/120 share out of the same khasra number from Sumit Kumar vide registered sale deed dated 31.01.2023. After the said purchase, the defendant started raising construction and attempted to encroach upon the property of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, requested that before raising any construction, proper demarcation of the land be carried out so that both parties may confine their possession within their respective shares. When her request was not heeded to, she was constrained to file the present suit.

3. In the written statement, the defendants alleged that the plaintiff, who had purchased only part of the land in Khasra No. 391, had already raised construction on the suit property as admitted in the site plan filed by her, and that this fact could be verified by appointment of a Local Commissioner. Issues were framed, and thereafter the plaintiff moved the present application for appointment of a Local Commissioner for spot inspection and demarcation. The trial Court, however, dismissed the application vide impugned order dated 19.08.2025 on the ground that the Court cannot be used as a tool for collection of evidence and that it is for the parties to lead cogent evidence in support of their respective cases.

Findings of this Court

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the pleadings, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is unsustainable. The dispute between the parties is not merely with regard to possession, but pertains to the identification and demarcation of their respective shares in Khasra No. 391. The plaintiff claims 22/120 share measuring 1 kanal 2 marlas, while the defendant claims 77/120 share measuring 3 kanals 17 marlas. Both sides are asserting possession over different portions of the same khasra number, and the TRIPTI SAINI controversy essentially revolves around the exact demarcation of the land in question.

5. It is noteworthy that in paragraph 3 of the written statement itself, the defendants suggested that the construction raised by the plaintiff could be verified through spot inspection by appointment of a Local Commissioner. Once both parties have set up rival claims over different parts of the same khasra number, the only fair and effective method to ascertain the truth is by way of demarcation. In such circumstances, refusal to appoint a Local Commissioner has resulted in denial of the best evidence available for proper adjudication of the matter.

6. The trial Court fell in error in treating the appointment of a Local Commissioner as collection of evidence on behalf of a party. The settled legal