IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (119 Date of Decision:-24.02.2026 RAMJI DASS … Petitioner Versus VIPAN KUMAR AND OTHERS ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court to assail the order dated 06.02.2026 (Annexure P-15) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kalka, whereby the application preferred by the respondent-plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”) seeking appointment of a Local Commissioner has been allowed.

2. The suit, in brief, has been instituted by the respondent- plaintiff for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and other defendants from interfering with his alleged peaceful possession over the suit land, fully described in the head-note of the plaint, forming part of Khasra No. 1034 (4-1), situated in village Marranwala, Hadbast No. 95, Tehsil Kalka, as reflected in the Jamabandi for the year 2022–23.

2.1. Upon notice, the petitioner-defendant and the other defendants entered appearance and contested the suit. Alongside the plaint, an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was also moved. During the pendency of the proceedings, the respondent-plaintiff filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC seeking appointment of a Local Commissioner. The said application was contested by the petitioner- defendant; however, vide order dated 06.02.2026 (Annexure P-15), the learned Civil Judge allowed the same and appointed the Halqa Patwari as Local Commissioner with directions to visit the spot, demarcate the land comprised in Khasra No. 1034 as well as Khasra No. 1036, and submit a report regarding the existing position at the site. The application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was also disposed of. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present revision petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have meticulously perused the record placed on file.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that defendant No. 4 had already obtained demarcation of Khasra No. 1036 through the competent revenue authorities on 21.12.2025 in the presence of the respondent- plaintiff, thereby obviating the necessity for any fresh demarcation, particularly through an official of a lower rank. It is further urged that the appointment of a Local Commissioner at this incipient stage of the proceedings is premature, inasmuch as the dispute regarding identification and extent of the property is a matter to be adjudicated upon the basis of evidence to be led by the parties. It is emphasized that the suit is at a nascent stage and even issues have not yet been framed. Learned counsel has additionally submitted that the petitioner has categorically stated that he is raising construction strictly within the bounds of his own land after due demarcation and has undertaken that, should it be established that any construction encroaches upon the land of the respondent-plaintiff, the same shall be demolished at his own cost. On these premises, it is contended that the order appointing the Local Commissioner runs contrary to the settled principles governing the exercise of discretion under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC.

5. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Civil Judge has recorded detailed findings in paragraph No.5 thereof, which read as under:-

5. “Careful perusal of the file reveals that the present suit for permanent injunction has been filed by the plaintiff with respect to suit all property falling under Khasra no. 1034 on the ground that the defendants are strangers to the same but they are interfering in his peaceful possession