Read Order: Harbans Singh v Pargat Singh & Others
Chandigarh, August 5, 2022: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner-defendant, impugning order of the lower court dismissing his application for appointment of a Local Commissioner for ascertaining whether the area shown in the site plan filed by the plaintiff bore any khsara number or not.
The Bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul has held in this regard, “The discretion to appoint a Local Commissioner rests with the Court and in case the Court refuses to appoint a Commissioner, the rights of the party cannot be said to have been prejudiced.”
Essentially, the present petitioner was completed as the defendant in a suit during the trial of which he filed an application for the appointment of a Local Commissioner. However the lower Court dismissed the said application. As a result, the petitioner approached the High Court with a division application under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution assailing the correctness of the order of dismissal of the civil court.
The plaintiff/ respondent had filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the petitioner/defendant from interfering in any way or manner and from demolishing any portion of the suit property.
It was the case of the Counsel for the petitioner that the property in dispute was located within the Lal Lakir and it did not bear any Khasra number. Thus, he contended that under the garb of khasra number 138 Rect.1 and 2, the plaintiff/respondent was wanting to grab a vacant portion marked with letters ‘ABCD’.
Hence, he submitted that it was necessary to appoint a Local Commissioner for demarcating the area marked with letters ‘ABCD’ and to submit a report as to whether the area shown in the site plan filed by the plaintiff bore any khsara number or not.
At the very outset the Court addressed the question of maintainability of the present revision petition. The Counsel for the petitioner was unable to satisfy the Court qua the same. Further, the Court pointed out that since no rights of the parties were admittedly adjudicated upon vide the impugned order, hence the instant revision petition cannot be entertained. “The discretion to appoint a Local Commissioner rests with the Court and in case the Court refuses to appoint a Commissioner, the rights of the party cannot be said to have been prejudiced” asserted Kaul while dismissing the instant revision petition.