IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (118 Date of Decision:-24.02.2026 PANKAJ NAGPAL … Petitioner Versus MOHINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Parmanand Yadav, Advocate with Mr. Ambanshu Sahni, Advocate for the petitioner (through video conferencing).

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. The instant revision petition, instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against and seeks to impugn the legality and propriety of the order dated 15.12.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram, has been pleased to allow the application moved by the respondent for the appointment of a Local Commissioner.

2. The respondent–plaintiff had purchased the plot in question from the petitioner by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 21.03.2018, measuring 1022.58 square yards. Subsequently, upon allegedly raising a boundary wall around the plot, the respondent–plaintiff claimed to have discovered that the actual area in his possession measured only 1006.08 square yards, thereby asserting a shortfall of 16.05 square yards. On the basis of the said alleged deficiency, he instituted a suit seeking recovery of the proportionate sale consideration, along with corresponding stamp duty and registration charges.

3. The petitioner entered appearance and contested the suit by filing a written statement. The respondent–plaintiff concluded his evidence on 14.07.2022. Thereafter, when the matter was pending for evidence of the petitioner, the respondent–plaintiff moved an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”), seeking appointment of a Local Commissioner for demarcation and measurement of the suit property.

4. The said application was resisted on the ground that it was highly belated and amounted to an attempt to fill lacunae and create evidence in support of a failing case. It was contended that the Court ought not to assist a litigant in collecting evidence after conclusion of his evidence. Notwithstanding such objections, the learned Civil Judge allowed the application vide the impugned order, which is under challenge in the present revision petition.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have carefully perused the entire paper-book and material placed on record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order suffers from patent jurisdictional error and material irregularity. It is contended that once the plaintiff has concluded his evidence, the appointment of a Local Commissioner to ascertain a foundational factual issue is ex facie impermissible and tantamount to enabling the plaintiff to gather fresh evidence. According to the petitioner, the provisions of Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC cannot be invoked as a device to cure evidentiary deficiencies. It is further urged that when the respondent–plaintiff is already in possession of the plot, there is no justification for appointment of a Local Commissioner to determine the area in his occupation, particularly when the registered sale deed constitutes a solemn and conclusive record of the extent of property conveyed. The learned Civil Judge, it is contended, has failed to accord due sanctity to the registered instrument.

6.1 A perusal of the impugned order, however, reveals that the learned Civil Judge has duly adverted to the factual matrix and the rival contentions. It has been recorded that the core dispute between the parties pertains to the actual measurement and extent of the suit property, and that such controversy cannot be effectively resolved without spot inspection and demarcation. The respondent–plaintiff alleges a deficiency in area vis-à-vis the recitals of the sale deed, which is categorically denied by the petitioner, thereby giving rise to a bona fide and substantive controversy regarding the exact measurement of the plot.

6.2. The learned Civil Judge has forme