IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-7543-2024 (O&M)

Date of decision: 10.02.2025 Hind Kumar (deceased) through his LRs and another ...Petitioners Versus Ram Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Arjun Dhingra, Advocate for the petitioners.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 15.10.2024 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), ACJM, Jagadhri vide which an application filed for appointment of some revenue officer as Local Commissioner to get demarcation of the suit property has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners-plaintiffs had filed a suit in the year 2017 and in the present case, the appointment of Local Commissioner is necessary to identify the suit property. It is submitted that the trial Court, vide order dated 15.10.2024, had dismissed the application for appointment of Local Commissioner, which deserves to be set aside.

3. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioners and has perused the paper book and finds that the impugned order dated 15.10.2024 is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld and the present revision petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed.

4. A perusal of impugned order dated 15.10.2024 would show that the trial Court had dismissed the application after observing that the issues in the present case were framed on 04.10.2019 and five witnesses of the petitioners-plaintiffs had already been examined and it was thereafter the said application was filed. It was further observed that in case the petitioners wanted to establish the identity of the suit property then they should lead cogent evidence in support of the same and onus of proving the said aspect is on the plaintiffs and the process of the Court cannot be used as a tool to gather the evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs. The observations made in the impugned order could not be disputed before this Court and thus, the impugned order has been rightly passed.

5. 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