IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (126)

CR-1557-2025 Date of Decision: - 17.03.2025 Surinder Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Sanjeev Goyal .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present:- Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated

19.02.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Rent Controller, Malerkotla.

2. The respondent had filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction, 1949 for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question on 05.07.2018. The petitioner had filed the reply and on 04.02.2025, an application was moved by the petitioner for appointment of Local Commissioner directing him to visit the spot of alleged suit land/plot and to give his report regarding alleged suit property. The Rent Controller, vide impugned order dated 19.02.2025 dismissed the said application by observing that it was for the petitioner/tenant to prove his stand by leading evidence and the Court cannot collect evidence on behalf of the petitioner. It was further observed that the case was at its fag end, inasmuch as, the application was filed at the stage when the cross-examination of the present petitioner/tenant was being conducted.

3. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the paper-book and is of the opinion that the order dated 19.02.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Rent Controller, Malerkotla, is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld, inasmuch as, it is a matter of settled law that the Court is not to collect evidence for either of the parties.

4. 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 clearly noticed by the Division Bench in Harvinder Kaur's case (supra) and it was observed:

“It may be observed that the facts of M/s Sadhu Ram Bali Ram's case were different as in that case the onus of an issue had been wrongly placed and while deciding that question, it was held that such an order would be revisable.”

Apart from that, placing the onus of an issue has something to do with the rights of the