IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision :29.07.2025 Supinder Singh ......Petitioner Versus Dev Raj and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present : Mr. S.P.S.Aulakh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vijay Rana, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J . (Oral) :

The instant revision petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the order dated 20.01.2024 (Annexure P-10), passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Jalandhar, vide which the application (Annexure P-6), filed by the petitioner for appointment of a Local Commissioner seeking demarcation of the suit land was dismissed.

2. A suit for permanent injunction (Annexure P-1), restraining the respondents-defendants No.1 and 2 from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner-plaintiff over property (fully described in the plaint) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit land’), situated in the revenue limits of Basti Danishmanda Tehsil and District Jalandhar by raising illegal construction, was filed. The case set up was that the petitioner-plaintiff and respondents- defendants No.3 to 5 were the joint owners in possession of the suit land measuring 43 kanals 9 marlas. 11 kanals 9 marlas of the land out of said land had been sold to different persons leaving a balance of 32 kanals.

Respondents-defendants No.1 and 2, who were stated to be the owners of agricultural land measuring 8 kanals 8 marlas each were stated to have conspired with some mischievous persons to encroach upon the land of the petitioner-plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 5. They had collected building material on the suit land with a view to raise illegal construction leading to the filing of the suit.

3. Vide order dated 03.06.2023 (Annexure P-2), ad interim injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff. The stay was ordered to be continued vide order dated 14.06.2023 (Annexure P-3).

4. The suit was opposed by way of written statement (Annexure P-5)

in which all averments as regards encroachment etc. were denied.

5. An application (Annexure P-6) was moved by the petitioner- plaintiff seeking demarcation of the suit property by a revenue officer to be appointed by the Court. This application was opposed by way of reply (Annexure P-8). By way of the impugned order, the application was dismissed, leading to the filing of the instant revision petition.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court erred in dismissing the application. He submits that the only way to go to the root of the matter would be by way of appointment of a Local Commissioner. He asserts that under similar circumstances, Civil Revision No.2463 of 2023 was decided by a Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Paramjit Sidhu Vs. Inderpreet Singh and others, 2024(1) RCR (Civil) 80. He submits that under the circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for contesting respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. He submits that the process of the Court cannot be utilized for collecting evidence. He further submits that the present revision petition, in fact, would not be even maintainable.

9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

10. The case of the petitioner-plaintiff is that the respondents- defendants No.1 and 2 were trying to encroach upon the suit land owned by the petitioner and respondents-defendants No.3 to 5. It would be solely for the petitioner-plaintiff to prove his own case by leading evidence. The process of the Court cannot be utilized to collect evidence. In any case, if at a subsequent stage, the Court is of the opinion that demarcation is required, it can always so direct. The trial Court rightly observed that since the identification of the property was not in dispute, there would be no occasion to ord