155 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH PREM CHAND SATYAPAL AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Mr. Mr. Manish Mehta, HARKESH MANUJA By way of present revision petition Constitution of India passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Divi whereby, an application preferred at the instance of petitioner for seeking appointment of Local Commissioner stands dismissed. 2. Briefly stating, the petitioner permanent injunction against proceedings. Pursuant to an application invoking Order 26 Rule 9 CPC with a prayer for appointment of Local Commissioner. respondents. The learned trial Court vide order dated 06.01.2020 prayer made by th Impugning the aforesaid has been filed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. 4. The prayer for appointment of made by the petitioner IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: PREM CHAND Versus SATYAPAL AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocate for the J.P. Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 24 and Mr. Manish Mehta, Advocate for respondent No.25. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of present revision petition Constitution of India, challenge has been laid passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Divi whereby, an application preferred at the instance of petitioner for seeking appointment of Local Commissioner stands dismissed. Briefly stating, the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents assailing the validity of partition Pursuant to the framing of issues, the petitioner an application invoking Order 26 Rule 9 CPC with a prayer for appointment of Local Commissioner. The prayer made therein was respondents. The learned trial Court vide order dated 06.01.2020 prayer made by the petitioner-plaintiff for appointment of Local Commissioner. Impugning the aforesaid order dated 06.01.2020 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the The prayer for appointment of a Local Commissioner has been petitioner-plaintiff on the basis of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-1067-2020 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 23, 2026 ........Petitioner ........Respondents HARKESH MANUJA Advocate for the petitioner. , Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 24 and 26. respondent No.25. By way of present revision petition filed under Article 227 of the laid to an order dated 06.01.2020 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Mohindergarh whereby, an application preferred at the instance of petitioner for seeking appointment of Local Commissioner stands dismissed. plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and assailing the validity of partition framing of issues, the petitioner-plaintiff moved an application invoking Order 26 Rule 9 CPC with a prayer for appointment of The prayer made therein was opposed at the instance of respondents. The learned trial Court vide order dated 06.01.2020 declined the appointment of Local Commissioner. order dated 06.01.2020, the present revision petition I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the Local Commissioner has been of averments contained in his (O&M) February 23, 2026 Petitioner filed under Article 227 of the to an order dated 06.01.2020 Mohindergarh whereby, an application preferred at the instance of petitioner for seeking plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and assailing the validity of partition plaintiff moved an application invoking Order 26 Rule 9 CPC with a prayer for appointment of opposed at the instance of the appointment of Local Commissioner. petition I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the Local Commissioner has been TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.02.24 18:40 I agree to specified portions of this document CR-1067-2020 (O&M) -2- application dated 19.03.2019. Para No.2 of the same being relevant is reproduced hereunder:- “That the Truck Union Mahendergarh and other co-sharer have taken in possession in their respective share in the Land in dispute but in the partition dated 31.01.1995 of the deponent the other land have been allotted to the owners as per partition. But on the post the owners are in possession of other land which prior to the partition. Even other wise the land is dispute was Gair Mumkin Land. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade had not powers to partition the land. Petition of the land was done mutually for last many years and as per the mutual partition the co-sharers were coming in possession of their respective shares and after filling the suit some of the co-sharers have raised construction on land in dispute and land is dispute is very valuable which is situated at Tula Ram Chowk, Dadri Mahendergarh Road. Therefore is necessary and equitable to get demarcate/Paimaish the land in dispute from Revenue Officer and called the spot report alongwith photographs. So that the real situation and spot report can come before Ld. Court and case can be decided on merit and the applicant can get natural justice.” 5. A perusal of the above shows that there is no averment made in the entire application with respect to the fact that any of the co-sharers is in possession of the land in excess of their shareholdings. In such circumstances, the prayer made for demarcation of the land in dispute is wholly uncalled for. Furthermore, as already expressed by the learned trial Court, there is no dispute regarding identification or measurement of the property in dispute and therefore, appointment of a Local Commissioner is not required. 6. In view of the aforesaid, there being no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned trial Court and finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed. 7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 23.02.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.02.24 18:40 I agree to specified portions of this document