IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 14.01.2026 Gurvinder Singh …Petitioner V/s Rupinder Singh and another …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. M.S. Khaira, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jarnail Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Darika Sikka, Advocate, for the respondents.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

The present revision petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the order dated 16.09.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide which the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the CPC”) was dismissed.

2. The petitioner-plaintiff (Gurvinder Singh) is the father’s brother of respondent-defendant No.1 (Rupinder Singh) and respondent-defendant No.2 (Karamjit Kaur) is the wife of respondent-defendant No.1.

3. The petitioner-plaintiff instituted a suit (Annexure P-1) for declaration to the effect that he had become the owner of three shops, one common passage, two godowns and one residential house (fully described in the plaint) situated near Fountain Chowk, Bhatia Nagar, Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar (hereinafter referred to as “the property in dispute”) by way of adverse possession. The case set up was that the respondents-defendants had started claiming that they had purchased the property in dispute and were threatening to dispossess the petitioner-plaintiff. Under the circumstances, the suit was instituted. Consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from interfering in the actual and physical possession of the petitioner-plaintiff was also sought.

4. During the pendency of the suit, an application (Annexure P-5) was moved for the appointment of a local commissioner and to direct him to visit the spot and submit a report regarding the existing position of shop No.4 and to report as to whether there was any way to approach the godowns except from the common passage. It was averred in the application that after the institution of the suit, the respondents defendants had illegally put a lock on the night of 09.10.2023 on the common passage leading to shop No.4 and in the process they had broken open the lock, put by the petitioner-plaintiff. It was also averred that the defendants had raised the construction of a wall as a result of the which, the petitioner-plaintiff was unable to use the common passage and the godowns. Under the circumstances, the appointment of a local commissioner was sought.

5. The application was opposed by way of a reply (Annexure P-6) wherein all averments were denied. It was also denied that there was a common passage. Breaking open of the lock or construction of a wall was also denied. It was averred that the local commissioner could not be appointed to collect evidence. Dismissal of the application was prayed for.

6. By way of the impugned order dated 16.09.2025, the application was dismissed leading to the filing of the present revision petition.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. Learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner-plaintiff has submitted that the trial Court erred in dismissing the application for the appointment of a local commissioner. It has been submitted that the local commissioner was being sought to be appointed to ascertain the putting of a lock and construction of a wall, post the institution of the suit and the only remedy with the petitioner-plaintiff to bring the said facts to the notice of the Court was by way of appointment of a local commissioner. It has been submitted that the local commissioner cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be, sought to be appointed for collection of evidence. It would be for the petitioner-plaintiff to prove his own case as pleaded in the plaint by leading cogent evidence. However, the factum of the lock having be