IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***

CR-2276-2025(O&M)

Date of decision : 15.07.2025 Amarinder Singh Bawa ... Petitioner Versus Jaswant Singh and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr.Tejinder Pal Singh Makkar, Advocate for the petitioner.

VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)

CM-11762-CII-2025

1. This is an application under Section 151 CPC for recalling the order dated 22.05.2025 passed in CM-10128-CII-2025 vide which the said CM has been dismissed for non-prosecution.

2. For the reasons stated in the application which is supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed and the order dated 22.05.2025 is recalled and the CM-10128-CII-2025 is ordered to be restored to its original number.

CM-10128-CII-2025

1. This is an application under Section 151 CPC for recalling of the order dated 09.04.2025 passed in the CR-2276-2025.

2. For the reasons stated in the application which is supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed and the order dated 09.04.2025 is recalled and the main petition is ordered to be restored to its original number.

1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 06.03.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Guruharsahai, District Ferozepur, vide which an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC read with Section 75 CPC filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for appointment of Local Commissioner has been dismissed.

2. 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 parties whereas refusing to appoint a Commission under Order 26, Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure, has nothing to do with the rights of the parties as such. It is the discretion of the Court to appoint a Commission there under and if the Court refuses to appoint a Comm