CR-8064-2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 242 Kudia Ram @ Lila Ram Gram Panchacyat village Uncha Majra and another CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 1. the impugned order dated learned Civil Judge ( whereby the application filed by the pe of Local Commissioner was dismissed. 2. case file in great detail. 3. in the first instance as it is established position in law, that an order allowing or rejecting application of either of the parties for appointment of Local Commissioner is not a revisable order. The present revision petition is in “Banarsi 2019 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-8064 Date of Decision: Kudia Ram @ Lila Ram Versus Gram Panchacyat village Uncha Majra and another CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Ms. Ruby Gupta, Advocate for Mr. RK Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No. 1. GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present revision petition is for setting aside the impugned order dated 20.09.2019 (Annexure P learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), whereby the application filed by the petitioner of Local Commissioner was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the case file in great detail. The prayer of the petitioner-plaintiff in the first instance as it is established position in law, that an order allowing or rejecting application of either of the parties for appointment of Local Commissioner is not a revisable order. The present revision petition is not maintainable in view of judgment of this Court Banarsi Dass v Sunita Rani @ Sarita Rani and others”, Law IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 8064-2019 Date of Decision: 07.08.2025 .… Petitioner Gram Panchacyat village Uncha Majra and another .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Ms. Ruby Gupta, Advocate for Mr. RK Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Prayer in the present revision petition is for setting aside 20.09.2019 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Pataudi, District Gurugram, titioner/plaintiff for appointment I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the plaintiff is liable to be rejected in the first instance as it is established position in law, that an order allowing or rejecting application of either of the parties for appointment of Local Commissioner is not a revisable order. The present revision not maintainable in view of judgment of this Court Dass v Sunita Rani @ Sarita Rani and others”, Law RISHU KATARIA 2025.08.08 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-8064-2019 Finder Doc Id # 827241, or dismissing application for appointment of Local Commission is not revisable. Even two Division Benches of this Court v Godha Ram”, 1979 PLJ 562 1990(2) PLR 191, against an order of application for appointment of Local Commissioner. 4. appoint Local Commissioner does not decide any issue nor adjudicate any rights of the parties for the purpose of the suit and theref revisable. nothing to do with the rights of the parties and it is purely the discretion of the Court. Commissioner, no right of the p held that the instrumentality of Court cannot be used on behalf of either party. rejecting appointment, of Local Commissioner, are not amenable to revisional jurisdiction. 5. for permanent injunctio has filed an application for appointment of local commissioner properly demarcate karam, phirni which is between two 20.09.2019 2019 -2- Finder Doc Id # 827241, wherein it has been held that order appointing or dismissing application for appointment of Local Commission is not isable. Even two Division Benches of this Court v Godha Ram”, 1979 PLJ 562 and “Pritam Singh v Sunder Lal”, 1990(2) PLR 191, have held that Revision Petition is not maintainable against an order of the Court below dismissing or allowing application for appointment of Local Commissioner. It is the consistent position in law, that an order refusing to appoint Local Commissioner does not decide any issue nor adjudicate any rights of the parties for the purpose of the suit and theref revisable. Refusing to appoint, or appointing, a Commissioner has nothing to do with the rights of the parties and it is purely the discretion of the Court. If the Court refuses to appoint, or appoints, a Local Commissioner, no right of the parties is prejudiced. It has further been held that the instrumentality of Court cannot be used on behalf of either party. Thus, orders allowing appointment, or rejecting appointment, of Local Commissioner, are not amenable to l jurisdiction. In the present case, the petitioner permanent injunction. During the pend filed an application for appointment of local commissioner y demarcate rasta sare aam No. 286 with total length of 93 phirni No. 105 as well as property of the petitioner/plaintiff which is between two rasta sare aam. 20.09.2019 (Annexure P-8), the learned trial Court wherein it has been held that order appointing or dismissing application for appointment of Local Commission is not isable. Even two Division Benches of this Court in “Harvinder Kaur “Pritam Singh v Sunder Lal”, have held that Revision Petition is not maintainable the Court below dismissing or allowing an application for appointment of Local Commissioner. It is the consistent position in law, that an order refusing to appoint Local Commissioner does not decide any issue nor adjudicate any rights of the parties for the purpose of the suit and therefore, is not Refusing to appoint, or appointing, a Commissioner has nothing to do with the rights of the parties and it is purely the discretion If the Court refuses to appoint, or appoints, a Local arties is prejudiced. It has further been held that the instrumentality of Court cannot be used to collect evidence Thus, orders allowing appointment, or rejecting appointment, of Local Commissioner, are not amenable to he petitioner-plaintiff had filed a suit During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application for appointment of local commissioner to No. 286 with total length of 93 No. 105 as well as property of the petitioner/plaintiff Vide impugned order dated trial Court had dismissed the RISHU KATARIA 2025.08.08 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-8064-2019 application for appointment of a that there is no requirement of further demarcation. 6. the legal position as noticed above. 7. 8. 07.08.2025 rishu 2019 -3- application for appointment of a local commissioner is no requirement of further demarcation. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to controvert the legal position as noticed above. In view of the above present petition is Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. .2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable ommissioner noticing therein is no requirement of further demarcation. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to controvert petition is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2025.08.08 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.