IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (130)

Date of Decision:-15.10.2025 Gurcharan Singh ……Petitioner Versus Harjinder Kaur and Others ……Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL ****

Present: Mr. Puneet Bhushan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

****

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral)

1. The present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 11.09.2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajpura vide which the application for appointment of local commissioner to any revenue officer with a direction to visit the spot & to prepare the site plan, has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a civil suit for permanent injunction to restrain the respondents/defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession and use of his residential house, from taking forcible possession thereof, and from obstructing the passage used for ingress and egress to the house. The petitioner also sought a decree for mandatory injunction directing the respondents to vacate the passage that had been blocked by them. Upon notice, respondents No. 3 to 7 appeared and filed their written statement, while respondents No. 1 and 2 were proceeded ex parte. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner moved an application for appointment of a Local Commissioner, preferably a Revenue Officer, to visit the spot and bring the actual existing position of the property in dispute before the Court. The respondents opposed the application. However, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajpura, vide order dated 11.09.2025, dismissed the said application.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the purpose of appointing a Local Commissioner was not to collect evidence but merely to assist the Court in understanding the true and existing factual position of the property, particularly the blocked passage and the construction of walls raised by the respondents. It has been submitted that the petitioner produced on record photographs and a site plan showing obstruction of the common passage, but the learned trial Court ignored these documents. It is further contended that it is settled law that a Local Commissioner acts as the eyes and ears of the Court, and his appointment would provide the aid in proper and effective adjudication in the case.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the paper book.

5. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice is not being issued to respondent as it would delay the proceedings besides entailing additional expenses to the respondent.

6. The main question involved in the present revision is whether the learned trial Court was justified in rejecting the petitioner’s application for appointment of a Local Commissioner. The purpose of appointing a Local Commissioner is to assist the Court in ascertaining the true and correct physical features or factual position of the property in dispute and not to collect evidence on behalf of any party. A Local Commissioner’s report only serves as an aid to the Court; it is not substantive evidence by itself.

7. It is well-settled law that though appointment of a Local Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC is discretionary, such discretion must be exercised to advance the cause of justice. Where the dispute pertains to identification, demarcation or actual physical features of the suit property, and no other effective method exists for determination of the controversy, the Court would be failing in its duty if it declines such appointment. Reference may be made to the judgments in Raj Kumar v. Tarlok Singh (2019) 1 ILR (P&H) 141, determination of substantive rights like ownership or possession may, in certain situations, be possible only through physical demarcation, and in such cases issuance of a commission is warranted. Equally, as held in Baljinder Singh v. Sukhdev