1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 14.08.2024 (Annexure P - 7) passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Dasuya vide which the application (Annexure P - 5) filed by the defendant - petitioner for the appointment of a Local Commissioner has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that the plaintiff - respondent no.1 had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant - petitioner or his agents, relatives etc. from interfering in any manner in the peaceful use and possession of the Haveli of the plaintiff which was bounded as detailed in the site plan. It was the case of the plaintiff that the area in question was in the possession of the plaintiff, which also included his residential house and that the defendant had forcibly started throwing manure pits on the said land. It was stated that the defendant was a head strong person and had influence on the local officials and hence, he was taking the benefit of the same. A written statement was filed by the defendant - petitioner in which one of the pleas taken by the petitioner was that after the demise of Uttam Chand, the property was inherited by Daulat Ram, Sohan Singh and Hari Ram and all the owners got dug a Well in the suit property.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has informed the Court that the evidence of the plaintiff was concluded and subsequently, an application dated 04.04.2024 was filed by the petitioner under O.26, R.9, CPC read with S.151, CPC for the appointment of a Local Commissioner to report regarding the existence or non existence of the Well in the suit property. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing a reply dated 07.05.2024. It was stated in the reply that the petitioner was neither the owner nor in possession of any part of the property and had filed a false application just to delay the proceedings.

4. The trial Court vide order dated 14.08.2024 had dismissed the said application by observing that the petitioner wanted the Court to collect evidence on behalf of the petitioner which is not permissible. It was observed that it is the petitioner, who is under the legal obligation to prove his plea taken in his written statement, by leading positive evidence. It is the said order which has been challenged in the present revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if the Local Commissioner is appointed, it would be established that the plea raised by the petitioner in the written statement with respect to there being a Well in the suit property is correct and it would further help the Court in deciding the case and thus, it is prayed that the application be allowed and the impugned order dated 14.08.2024 be set aside.

6. The above said argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is meritless and deserves to be dismissed on two counts. Firstly it would be relevant to mention that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pritam Singh v. Sunder Lal reported as 1990(2) PLR 191:(AIROnLine 1990 P and H 11) 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 v. 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 v. Madan Lal and others", reported as (2017 (3) PLR 249 :(AIROnLine 2017 P and H 62)), 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