IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 04.03.2025 Ramesh …Petitioner Versus Nathu Ram deceased thr his LR Khushi Ram and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Yash Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

CM-4320-CII-2025 Allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions.

CR No.1302 of 2025 The present revision petition assails two orders, both dated

14.02.2025 (Annexures P-9 and P-10) vide which the objections filed by the petitioner/JD against the report of the Local Commissioner and the application seeking to summon the Local Commissioner for cross-

examination were dismissed.

2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that respondent No.1-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the petitioner-JD from raising any construction over residential property (fully described in the plaint) situated in Dhondh Khurd, Ward No.2, Ferozepur Jhirka (hereinafter referred to as the suit property) and from dispossessing respondent No.1-plaintiff from the same. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 13.08.2015 (Annexure P-2).

3. Execution petition (Annexure P-2) was filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff. During the pendency of the same, a Local Commissioner was appointed vide order dated 01.12.2021 (Annexure P-3). Thereafter, report dated 10.03.2023 (Annexure P-4) was submitted by the Local Commissioner. Objections (Annexure P-5) were filed against the said report by the petitioner-JD. The same were opposed by way of reply (Annexure P- 6). Another application for summoning the Local Commissioner as a Court witness (Annexure P-7) was also filed which was also opposed by way of a reply (Annexure P-8). Both applications were dismissed vide order dated 14.02.2025 (Annexure P-9 and P-10) leading to the filing of the instant revision petition.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel has strenuously urged that the impugned orders are not sustainable. He refers to the provisions of Order 26 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) and contends that permission should have been granted to summon the Local Commissioner so that he could be examined. Learned counsel submits that the order dated 01.12.2021 vide which the Local Commissioner had been appointed had specifically directed the Local Commissioner to place on record the current photographs of the site in question which was not done and, therefore, the report was incomplete and vague. He submits that on account of the dismissal of the application, the rights of the petitioners have been gravely prejudiced. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Balbir Dewan Cold Storage and General Mills Vs. Naveen Chander 1989 AIR (P&H) 257 and Judgments passed by Coordinate Benches of this Court in the case of Om Parkash Vs. Ram Kumar 2020(2) PLR 28 and Roshan Lal Vs. Jai Singh and others 2015(4) RCR (Civil) 1032.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner but find the same to be devoid of merit. Order 26 CPC deals with commissions. Rule 9 thereof provides for commissions to make local investigations and Rule 10 deals with the procedure. Rule 10(ii) provides that the report of the Commissioner and the evidence taken by him shall be evidence in the suit and shall form part of the record but the Court or, with the permission of the Court, any of the parties to the suit may examine the Commissioner personally in open Court touching any of the matters referred to him or mentioned in his report, or as to his report, or as to the manner in which he had made the investigation. Rule 10(iii) empowers the Court to order further inquiry if it feels dissatisfied with the proceedings of the Commissioner. These provisions came to be interpreted by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Balbir De