IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Date of decision: 10.01.2025 Harpreet Kaur ...Petitioner.

Versus Paramjeet Singh and others ....Respondents.

***

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR ----

Present: Mr. K.D.S. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

Sukhvinder Kaur, J.

By way of present revision petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 12.11.2024 (Annexure P-1), passed by the trial Court, vide which application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of Local Commissioner, was dismissed.

2. The brief facts relevant for adjudication of the present revision petition are that the plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from demolishing a common wall between their properties and also from restraining the defendants from interfering into possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. Mandatory injunction was also sought for directing the defendants to reconstruct the wall as it was existing at the time of filing of the suit, if the defendants succeed in demolishing the wall.

3. During pendency of the suit before the trial Court an application was moved by the petitioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of Local Commissioner and it was prayed that Local Commissioner be appointed and he be directed to report regarding existing possession and for measuring the houses of plaintiff and defendant. It was alleged that the plaintiff had purchased property bearing house No.580 situated at Model Town, Panipat and defendants have also purchased the property adjoining to the house of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is in less possession of the property which has been purchased by her and defendants are in excess share of the property which was purchased by them. Defendants want to occupy the land marked by letters A, B and they have raised unauthorized construction on some portion of the wall in dispute and are threatening to occupy the remaining wall. It was alleged that the possession of plaintiff and defendants over the property was to be proved through the report of Local Commissioner.

4. Notice of the said application was given to the defendants who resisted the same by filing the reply and it was alleged that contents of the application did not match with the pleadings of the plaintiff. There was no question of demarcating the property as it was not the case of the plaintiff that defendants/ respondents have occupied the property of the plaintiff.

5. The said application filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff for appointment of Local Commissioner was dismissed by trial Court vide order dated 12.11.2024. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court by way of filing the present revision petition.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has contended that the petitioner filed the present suit against respondents/ defendants for restraining them from demolishing the wall and the report of the Local Commissioner was necessary for better appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case. He has contended that the plaintiff is in less possession of the property which has been purchased by her and defendants are in excess share of the property which has been purchased by them. After purchase of the property the defendants with dishonest intention want to occupy the wall in question and have raised unauthorized construction over some portion of the wall in dispute and are also threatening to occupy the remaining wall. He has further argued that the petitioner/ plaintiff has to prove the possession of her property as purchased by her and possession of defendants is also to be seen by the Court through report of Local Commissioner and the report of Local Commissioner will bring on record the fact that whether defendants are in possession of the land according to the sale deed executed in their favour. Only the report of the Local Commissioner will depict the existing position of the property and measurement of both the houses of