122

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CR No.860 of 2022

Date of Decision: 11.03.2022

Harpal Kaur

……Revisionist-petitioner.

Versus

Mangat Singh and others

……Respondents.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

*****

Present:-

Mr. Lalit Kumar, Advocate

for the revisionist-petitioner.

MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.

The petitioner (plaintiff before the trial Court) herein assails

the order dated 11.02.2022 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Civil Judge

(Junior Division), Tohana (for short, ‘the trial Court’) whereby the

application moved by her under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151

CPC for seeking appointment of the Local Commissioner, has been

dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner in this petition

and have perused the file carefully.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner

is the owner and is in possession over the suit property and the report of the

Local Commissioner would depict the actual position prevailing at the spot

but vide the impugned order, the trial Court has erroneously dismissed her

(petitioner’s) application moved for this purpose.

YAG DUTT

2022.03.15 15:53

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

CR No.860 of 2022

-2-

The petitioner has filed the Civil Suit against the respondents

for seeking a decree for declaration to the effect that she is owner in

possession of the suit property and has also prayed for grant of injuction to

restrain the respondents-defendants from interfering in her possession over

it and from dispossessing her from the same. She moved an application

before the trial Court with a prayer to appoint the Local Commissioner

which has been dismissed vide the impugned order.

It is entirely for the petitioner to adduce evidence to

substantiate her claim in the Civil Suit. It is well-settled that the Local

Commissioner cannot be appointed to collect evidence for any of the

parties and that too, for the purpose of ascertaining the factum of

ownership as well as possession over the property in dispute. To add to it,

this petition is not maintainable in view of the observations made by the

Division Bench of this Court in Pritam Singh and another Versus Sunder

Lal and others, 1990 PLJ 418 to the effect “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”.

Resultantly, the revision-petition in hand, being sans any

merit, stands dismissed.

(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)

March 11, 2022

JUDGE

Yag Dutt

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes

Whether Reportable:

No

YAG DUTT

2022.03.15 15:53

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document