1 ( 2025:HHC:8352 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.484 of 2022 Date of Decision : 28.03.2025 Kewal Krishan …… Petitioner Versus Madan Lal and others ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rohit, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jai Ram Sharma, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 17.09.2022, whereby, an application filed under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Sections 94 and 151 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the present petitoner i.e. plaintiff before the Trial Court, has been dismissed. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings appended along with the present petition. 3. The dispute, in the case at hand, pertains to the ownership and possession of a shop. The present petitioner/plaintiff claims to be 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:8352 ) owner in possession of the same on the basis of a Will dated 21.05.1970. 4. Per contra, respondent No.1/defendant No.1 claims the disputed shop to have been purchased by him through a registered sale deed dated 30.04.1957 from one Hans Raj son of Babu Ram for a sum of Rs.5,500/-. 5. Prior to filing of the instant application, the present petitioner/plaintiff had filed an application under Order 18 Rule 18 CPC. The prayer made in the said application was for a spot visit in order to find out as to who is in possession of the shop in dispute. The said application has been dismissed on 17.08.2022. After the dismissal of the said application, the matter was listed for final arguments. At this stage, the present application so filed under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC is for seeking appointment of a Local Commissioner to visit the spot and to ascertain as to who is in possession of the shop in dispute. 6. Rule 9 of Order 26 CPC reads as follow Rule 9 of Order 26 CPC reads as follows: “9. Commissions to make local investigations.—In any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the market-value of any property, or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits, the Court may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court: Provided that, where the State Government has made rules as to the persons to whom such commission shall be issued, the Court shall be bound by such rules.” 3 ( 2025:HHC:8352 ) 7. A bare reading of Rule 9 of Order 26 CPC clearly indicates that amongst other purposes a local commissioner can be issued for elucidating any matter in dispute. The expression “elucidate” means to make lucid or clear, throw light upon, explanation, enlighten. The object of local investigation is not to collect evidence which can be adduced in the Court by the party itself. 8. Only when the court is satisfied on materials available on record that a party is not able to produce required evidence due to certain circumstances, the Court may appoint a Local Commissioner to get such material, which can neither be had from the record nor can be produced by leading oral or documentary evidence. Appointment of a local commissioner cannot be claimed by a party as a matter of right. 9. From perusal of the impugned judgment, it is evident that the Court below, while passing the impugned judgment has perused the record threadbare, proceeded within the prescribed parameters and thereafter after a due application of mind has arrived at a reasonable conclusion. In dismissing the application there is no miscarriage of justice, 10. Moreover the present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The scope of jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution has been expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under: “(i) In Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & another, (2003)3 SCC 524, it has been held as under:- 4 ( 2025:HHC:8352 ) “7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or re- weigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision.” (iii) In Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022)4 SCC 181, it has been held as under:- “15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to re-appreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute conclusion, for its own that of decision the on facts inferior court and or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms) and Others v.Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and Others, (2010) 1 SCC violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no 5 ( 2025:HHC:8352 ) reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice. 11. Thus, from the above stated exposition of law, it is clear that this Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to interfere under the correctional jurisdiction vested in it in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except to set right a grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice, miscarriage of justice, un-reasonable conclusion and perversity. On the other hand in the supervisory jurisdiction reviewing or re-weighing evidence, substituting conclusions, correcting every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported is not permissible. 12. In the case at hand, for the reasons stated herein above, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out in the present petition for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. In view of above terms, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 14. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 11.04.2025. (Bipin Chander Negi) March 28, 2025 (KS) Judge