IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Revision No.9878 of 2025

Date of decision: January 8^th, 2026

Shailja Kataria

.....Petitioner

Versus

Gurpreet Singh and others

.....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present: Mr. Dinesh Maurya, Advocate

for the petitioner.

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 19.09.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Assandh, vide which the application filed by the petitioner for appointment of Local Commissioner

has been dismissed.

2. 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 challenge is to the order dismissing the application for appointment of a Local Commissioner. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pritam Singh Vs. Sunder Lal [1990(2) PLR 191]

inter-alia held as under:

"6. After going through the judgments cited in the reference order, we do not find that the earlier judgment in Harvinder Kaur's case (supra) requires any reconsideration. 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. The distinction sought to be made by the learned Single Judge in view of the Judgment in M/s Sadhu Ram Bali Ram's case (supra) was clearly noticed by the Division Bench in Harvinder Kaur's case (supra) and it was observed:

"It may be observed that the facts of M/s Sadhu Ram Bali Ram's case were different as in that case the onus of an issue had been wrongly placed and while deciding that question, it was held that such an order would be revisable."

Apart from that, placing the onus of an issue has something to do with the rights of the parties whereas refusing to appoint a Commission under Order 26, Rule

9, Code of Civil Procedure, has nothing to do with the rights of the parties as such. It is the discretion of the Court to appoint a Commission there under and if the Court refuses to appoint a Commission, then no right of any party can be said to be prejudiced as such."

7. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of Smt. Raksha Devi Vs. Madan Lal & Ors. [2017(3) PLR 249] wherein it has categorically been held that no revision would be maintainable against an order dismissing an application for appointment of a Local Commissioner. It is trite that an order refusing to appoint a Local Commissioner does not decide any issue nor does it adjudicate any rights of the parties for the purpose of the suit and hence would not be a revisable order.

8. In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Court below. 9. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off."

3. The provision of Order 26 Rule 9 CPC is repro