In CR No.2752 of 2022-PUNJ HC- No revision will be maintainable against order dismissing application for appointment of Local Commissioner as such order neither decides any issue nor adjudicates any rights of parties: P&H HC Justice Alka Sarin [18-07-2022]

Read Order: Harchand v. Karambir Singh and Another

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, July 19, 2022: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has recently held that an order refusing to appoint a Local Commissioner does not decide any issue nor does it adjudicate any rights of the parties for the purpose of the suit and hence would not be a revisable order. 

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Alka Sarin was considering the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India preferred by the plaintiff-petitioner for setting aside the order of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tosham by which the application for appointment of a Local Commissioner was dismissed. 

Essentially, the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondents from interfering in his peaceful possession and cultivation of the suit property. Further, he sought to restrain the defendant-respondents from causing interference in his use and enjoyment of the suit property and from changing its nature in any manner. 

Thereafter, during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) for the appointment of a Local Commissioner for bringing on record the existing position of the suit property. The said application was contested by the defendant-respondents inter-alia pleading that the application was filed just to delay the proceedings and that the plaintiff-petitioner had no locus standi to file the application. 

It was further pleaded that the application did not fall within the ambit of Order XXVI Rules 9 and 10 read with Section 151 CPC and that the Local Commissioner cannot be appointed to collect the evidence for any of the parties. Even the possession of the plaintiff-petitioner on the suit property was denied. Vide the impugned order, the said application was dismissed by the Trial Court. 

The counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner contended that the appointment of the Local Commissioner would be necessary in order to bring on record the existing position of the suit property.

In light of the above, the Court opined that it is trite that an order refusing to appoint a Local Commissioner does not decide any issue nor does it adjudicate any rights of the parties for the purpose of the suit and hence would not be a revisable order. 

Thus, finding no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Court below, the revision petition was dismissed.