CR-6512-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Kamala Devi Bimla Devi and Others CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Piyush Setia, Advocate for the petitioner. MANDEEP PANNU 1. Present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for setting aside the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Abohar, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of a Local Commissioner/revenue Patwari or any other competent pe to submit a report regarding the actual and factual position of the suit property after demarcation, has been dismissed. Brief Facts 2. The case set up by the petitioner is that she filed a suit for permanent injunction restrain over the plot measuring 1 kanal 2 marlas, i.e. 22/120 share out of 6 kanals comprised in Khasra No. 3 jamabandi for the year 2017 District Fazilka. It is pleaded that originally the land in question belonged to one Sumit Kumar, who sold 22/120 share out of 6 kanals to the petitioner through a registered sale deed dated 28.06.2022. Subsequently, def (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR Decided on : VERSUS Bimla Devi and Others CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Piyush Setia, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. Present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for setting aside the impugned order dated 19.08.2025 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Abohar, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of a Local Commissioner/revenue Patwari or any other competent pe to submit a report regarding the actual and factual position of the suit property after demarcation, has been dismissed. The case set up by the petitioner is that she filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in her peaceful possession over the plot measuring 1 kanal 2 marlas, i.e. 22/120 share out of 6 kanals comprised in Khasra No. 391(6-0), Khewat No. 4, Khatauni No. 57, as per jamabandi for the year 2017–2018, situated in District Fazilka. It is pleaded that originally the land in question belonged to one Sumit Kumar, who sold 22/120 share out of 6 kanals to the petitioner through a registered sale deed dated 28.06.2022. Subsequently, def -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-6512-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 16.09.2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Piyush Setia, Advocate for the petitioner. Present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for impugned order dated 19.08.2025 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Abohar, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of a Local Commissioner/revenue Patwari or any other competent person to visit the spot and to submit a report regarding the actual and factual position of the suit property after The case set up by the petitioner is that she filed a suit for permanent ing the defendants from interfering in her peaceful possession over the plot measuring 1 kanal 2 marlas, i.e. 22/120 share out of 6 kanals , Khewat No. 4, Khatauni No. 57, as per village Narainpura, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka. It is pleaded that originally the land in question belonged to one Sumit Kumar, who sold 22/120 share out of 6 kanals to the petitioner through a registered sale deed dated 28.06.2022. Subsequently, defendant No. 1 also - ....Respondents Present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for impugned order dated 19.08.2025 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Abohar, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of a Local rson to visit the spot and to submit a report regarding the actual and factual position of the suit property after The case set up by the petitioner is that she filed a suit for permanent ing the defendants from interfering in her peaceful possession over the plot measuring 1 kanal 2 marlas, i.e. 22/120 share out of 6 kanals , Khewat No. 4, Khatauni No. 57, as per , Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka. It is pleaded that originally the land in question belonged to one Sumit Kumar, who sold 22/120 share out of 6 kanals to the petitioner through a endant No. 1 also TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6512-2025 (O&M) purchased 77/120 share out of the same khasra number from Sumit Kumar vide registered sale deed dated 31.01.2023. After the said purchase, the defendant started raising construction and attempted to encroach upon the property of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, requested that before raising any construction, proper demarcation of the land be carried out so that both parties may confine their possession within their respective shares. When her request was not heeded to, she was constrained to file the present suit. 3. In the written statement, the defendants alleged that the plaintiff, who had purchased only part of the land in Khasra No. 391, had already raised construction on the suit property as admitted in the site plan filed this fact could be verified by appointment of a Local Commissioner. Issues were framed, and thereafter the plaintiff moved the present application for appointment of a Local Commissioner for spot inspection and demarcation. The trial Court however, dismissed the application vide impugned order dated 19.08.2025 on the ground that the Court cannot be used as a tool for collection of evidence and that it is for the parties to lead cogent evidence in support of their respective cases. Findings of this Court 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the the pleadings, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is unsustainable. The dispute between the parties is not merely with regard to possession, bu pertains to the identification and demarcation of their respective shares in Khasra No. 391. The plaintiff claims 22/120 share measuring 1 kanal 2 marlas, while the defendant claims 77/120 share measuring 3 kanals 17 marlas. Both sides are asserting possession over different portions of the same khasra number, and the (O&M) purchased 77/120 share out of the same khasra number from Sumit Kumar vide registered sale deed dated 31.01.2023. After the said purchase, the defendant started raising construction and attempted to encroach upon the property of the ioner. The petitioner, therefore, requested that before raising any construction, proper demarcation of the land be carried out so that both parties may confine their possession within their respective shares. When her request was not heeded to, she nstrained to file the present suit. In the written statement, the defendants alleged that the plaintiff, who had purchased only part of the land in Khasra No. 391, had already raised construction on the suit property as admitted in the site plan filed this fact could be verified by appointment of a Local Commissioner. Issues were framed, and thereafter the plaintiff moved the present application for appointment of a Local Commissioner for spot inspection and demarcation. The trial Court however, dismissed the application vide impugned order dated 19.08.2025 on the ground that the Court cannot be used as a tool for collection of evidence and that it is for the parties to lead cogent evidence in support of their respective cases. Findings of this Court Having heard the learned counsel for the the pleadings, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is unsustainable. The dispute between the parties is not merely with regard to possession, bu pertains to the identification and demarcation of their respective shares in Khasra No. 391. The plaintiff claims 22/120 share measuring 1 kanal 2 marlas, while the defendant claims 77/120 share measuring 3 kanals 17 marlas. Both sides are ession over different portions of the same khasra number, and the -2- purchased 77/120 share out of the same khasra number from Sumit Kumar vide registered sale deed dated 31.01.2023. After the said purchase, the defendant started raising construction and attempted to encroach upon the property of the ioner. The petitioner, therefore, requested that before raising any construction, proper demarcation of the land be carried out so that both parties may confine their possession within their respective shares. When her request was not heeded to, she In the written statement, the defendants alleged that the plaintiff, who had purchased only part of the land in Khasra No. 391, had already raised construction on the suit property as admitted in the site plan filed by her, and that this fact could be verified by appointment of a Local Commissioner. Issues were framed, and thereafter the plaintiff moved the present application for appointment of a Local Commissioner for spot inspection and demarcation. The trial Court however, dismissed the application vide impugned order dated 19.08.2025 on the ground that the Court cannot be used as a tool for collection of evidence and that it is for the parties to lead cogent evidence in support of their respective cases. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the pleadings, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is unsustainable. The dispute between the parties is not merely with regard to possession, bu pertains to the identification and demarcation of their respective shares in Khasra No. 391. The plaintiff claims 22/120 share measuring 1 kanal 2 marlas, while the defendant claims 77/120 share measuring 3 kanals 17 marlas. Both sides are ession over different portions of the same khasra number, and the - purchased 77/120 share out of the same khasra number from Sumit Kumar vide registered sale deed dated 31.01.2023. After the said purchase, the defendant started raising construction and attempted to encroach upon the property of the ioner. The petitioner, therefore, requested that before raising any construction, proper demarcation of the land be carried out so that both parties may confine their possession within their respective shares. When her request was not heeded to, she In the written statement, the defendants alleged that the plaintiff, who had purchased only part of the land in Khasra No. 391, had already raised by her, and that this fact could be verified by appointment of a Local Commissioner. Issues were framed, and thereafter the plaintiff moved the present application for appointment of a Local Commissioner for spot inspection and demarcation. The trial Court, however, dismissed the application vide impugned order dated 19.08.2025 on the ground that the Court cannot be used as a tool for collection of evidence and that it and on perusal of the pleadings, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is unsustainable. The dispute between the parties is not merely with regard to possession, but pertains to the identification and demarcation of their respective shares in Khasra No. 391. The plaintiff claims 22/120 share measuring 1 kanal 2 marlas, while the defendant claims 77/120 share measuring 3 kanals 17 marlas. Both sides are ession over different portions of the same khasra number, and the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6512-2025 (O&M) controversy essentially revolves around the exact demarcation of the land in question. 5. It is noteworthy that in paragraph 3 of the written statement itself, the defendants suggested that through spot inspection by appointment of a Local Commissioner. Once both parties have set up rival claims over different parts of the same khasra number, the only fair and effective method to asc such circumstances, refusal to appoint a Local Commissioner has resulted in denial of the best evidence available for proper adjudication of the matter. 6. The trial Court fell in error in treating the appoint Commissioner as collection of evidence on behalf of a party. The settled legal position is that under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, the Court may issue a commission where local investigation is required for elucidating any matter in dispute. In Neelam Singla v. Jasbir Singh, CR No. 723 of 2023 decided on 23.03.2023 was held that a report by the Local Commissioner would in fact help in effective adjudication of the issue and would not cause any prejudice to either side Similarly, in a catena of d demarcation and identification of land, spot inspection by a Local Commissioner is often the most impartial and effective mode of arriving at a just decision. 7. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinio dated 19.08.2025 suffers from a serious legal infirmity. The application filed by the petitioner was not for creating or collecting evidence but for ascertaining the exact factual position of the suit land, which lies at the heart between the parties. Refusal to appoint a Local Commissioner has caused grave prejudice and amounts to denial of fair adjudication. (O&M) controversy essentially revolves around the exact demarcation of the land in It is noteworthy that in paragraph 3 of the written statement itself, the defendants suggested that the construction raised by the plaintiff could be verified through spot inspection by appointment of a Local Commissioner. Once both parties have set up rival claims over different parts of the same khasra number, the only fair and effective method to ascertain the truth is by way of demarcation. In such circumstances, refusal to appoint a Local Commissioner has resulted in denial of the best evidence available for proper adjudication of the matter. The trial Court fell in error in treating the appoint Commissioner as collection of evidence on behalf of a party. The settled legal position is that under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, the Court may issue a commission where local investigation is required for elucidating any matter in dispute. In am Singla v. Jasbir Singh, CR No. 723 of 2023 decided on 23.03.2023 a report by the Local Commissioner would in fact help in effective adjudication of the issue and would not cause any prejudice to either side Similarly, in a catena of decisions it has been emphasized that in cases of demarcation and identification of land, spot inspection by a Local Commissioner is often the most impartial and effective mode of arriving at a just decision. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinio dated 19.08.2025 suffers from a serious legal infirmity. The application filed by the petitioner was not for creating or collecting evidence but for ascertaining the exact factual position of the suit land, which lies at the heart between the parties. Refusal to appoint a Local Commissioner has caused grave prejudice and amounts to denial of fair adjudication. -3- controversy essentially revolves around the exact demarcation of the land in It is noteworthy that in paragraph 3 of the written statement itself, the the construction raised by the plaintiff could be verified through spot inspection by appointment of a Local Commissioner. Once both parties have set up rival claims over different parts of the same khasra number, the ertain the truth is by way of demarcation. In such circumstances, refusal to appoint a Local Commissioner has resulted in denial of the best evidence available for proper adjudication of the matter. The trial Court fell in error in treating the appointment of a Local Commissioner as collection of evidence on behalf of a party. The settled legal position is that under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, the Court may issue a commission where local investigation is required for elucidating any matter in dispute. In am Singla v. Jasbir Singh, CR No. 723 of 2023 decided on 23.03.2023 a report by the Local Commissioner would in fact help in effective adjudication of the issue and would not cause any prejudice to either side ecisions it has been emphasized that in cases of demarcation and identification of land, spot inspection by a Local Commissioner is often the most impartial and effective mode of arriving at a just decision. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 19.08.2025 suffers from a serious legal infirmity. The application filed by the petitioner was not for creating or collecting evidence but for ascertaining the exact factual position of the suit land, which lies at the heart of the controversy between the parties. Refusal to appoint a Local Commissioner has caused grave prejudice and amounts to denial of fair adjudication. - controversy essentially revolves around the exact demarcation of the land in It is noteworthy that in paragraph 3 of the written statement itself, the the construction raised by the plaintiff could be verified through spot inspection by appointment of a Local Commissioner. Once both parties have set up rival claims over different parts of the same khasra number, the ertain the truth is by way of demarcation. In such circumstances, refusal to appoint a Local Commissioner has resulted in denial ment of a Local Commissioner as collection of evidence on behalf of a party. The settled legal position is that under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, the Court may issue a commission where local investigation is required for elucidating any matter in dispute. In am Singla v. Jasbir Singh, CR No. 723 of 2023 decided on 23.03.2023, it a report by the Local Commissioner would in fact help in effective adjudication of the issue and would not cause any prejudice to either side. ecisions it has been emphasized that in cases of demarcation and identification of land, spot inspection by a Local Commissioner is n that the impugned order dated 19.08.2025 suffers from a serious legal infirmity. The application filed by the petitioner was not for creating or collecting evidence but for ascertaining the of the controversy between the parties. Refusal to appoint a Local Commissioner has caused grave TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6512-2025 (O&M) Conclusion 8. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.08.2025 passe set aside. The trial Court is directed to appoint a Local Commissioner, preferably the revenue Patwari of the concerned circle or any other competent official, to conduct demarcation of Khasra No. respective parties, and submit a report before the Court. Both sides shall be afforded opportunity to participate in the demarcation proceedings and to file objections, if any, to the report. The trial Court matter in accordance with law. 9. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. September 16, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable (O&M) Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Abohar, is set aside. The trial Court is directed to appoint a Local Commissioner, preferably the revenue Patwari of the concerned circle or any other competent official, to conduct demarcation of Khasra No. 391, indicate the portions in possession of the respective parties, and submit a report before the Court. Both sides shall be afforded opportunity to participate in the demarcation proceedings and to file objections, if any, to the report. The trial Court matter in accordance with law. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -4- Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order d by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Abohar, is set aside. The trial Court is directed to appoint a Local Commissioner, preferably the revenue Patwari of the concerned circle or any other competent official, to 391, indicate the portions in possession of the respective parties, and submit a report before the Court. Both sides shall be afforded opportunity to participate in the demarcation proceedings and to file objections, if any, to the report. The trial Court shall thereafter proceed with the Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE - Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order d by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Abohar, is set aside. The trial Court is directed to appoint a Local Commissioner, preferably the revenue Patwari of the concerned circle or any other competent official, to 391, indicate the portions in possession of the respective parties, and submit a report before the Court. Both sides shall be afforded opportunity to participate in the demarcation proceedings and to file shall thereafter proceed with the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document