CR-1209- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 125 KHIAL SINGH AND ANOTHER LEKH RAJ AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: SUVIR SEHGAL 1. the learned Civil Judge ( filed under Order 26 Rule 9 has been dismissed, of instant revision petition. 2. petitioner defendants/ construction or demoli have installed a their hard -2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH KHIAL SINGH AND ANOTHER VS. LEKH RAJ AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Mr. Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Akhil Dadwal, Advocate for the respondents. **** SUVIR SEHGAL, J. Aggrieved of order dated 29.01 the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of a Local has been dismissed, petitioners/plaintiffs ha of instant revision petition. Mr. Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate, has submitted that s/plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction defendants/respondents from interfering in the suit land or from making any construction or demolishing the suit property. He states that the plaintiffs have installed a flour mill and other machinery hard earned money besides constructi IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-1209-2025 Date of decision:06.05.2025 ...PETITIONERS ...RESPONDENTS SUVIR SEHGAL Mr. Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate 29.01.2025, Annexure P-7, passed by , Mukerian, whereby an application appointment of a Local Commissioner have approached this Court by way Advocate, has submitted that s/plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the from interfering in the suit land or from making any the suit property. He states that the plaintiffs machinery on the suit land by investing money besides constructing a residential house on the suit .2025 passed by whereby an application Commissioner, approached this Court by way Advocate, has submitted that restraining the from interfering in the suit land or from making any the suit property. He states that the plaintiffs investing the suit Sheetal 2025.05.08 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CR-1209- land. He states that possession was filed the parties to maintain status quo the suit property. Counsel asserts that when the respondents forcibly constructed a wall Order 39 Rule 2 complaint violated the for appointment of a Local Commissioner, which erroneously declined by the Trial Court. It is his of a Local Commissioner would that the defendants have raised illegal construction the suit property. Finder DocI 3. and has submitted that the placed reliance upon the judgments of the Division Benches of this Court in Harvinder Kaur and another as also on PLR 191. 4. respective submissions. 5. application filed by -2025 -2- . He states that as the defendants were threaten possession, a civil suit for permanent injunction was filed and by order dated 30.08.2022, the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession and construction the suit property. Counsel asserts that when the respondents forcibly constructed a wall, petitioners filed an Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC and also approach complaint. He submits that in order to establish that violated the status quo order, petitioners filed an application, Annexure P for appointment of a Local Commissioner, which erroneously declined by the Trial Court. It is his of a Local Commissioner would aid the Court that the defendants have raised illegal construction the suit property. He has relied on Jitender alias Leela Vs. Rashma DocID#1951697. Per contra, counsel for the respondents submitted that the revision petition is not maintainable. He has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Division Benches of this Court in Harvinder Kaur and another Vs. Godha Ram and another as also on Pritam Singh and another Vs. Sunder . I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their respective submissions. Petitioners have challenged application filed by them for appointment of a Local Commissioner has been as the defendants were threatening to interfere with their , a civil suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents Annexure P-2, Trial Court directed regarding possession and construction over the suit property. Counsel asserts that when the respondents forcibly application, Annexure P-2, under approached the police by submitting a in order to establish that the defendants have order, petitioners filed an application, Annexure P for appointment of a Local Commissioner, which after contest, has been erroneously declined by the Trial Court. It is his argument that appointment the Court in coming to the conclusion that the defendants have raised illegal construction as also encroached upon Jitender alias Leela Vs. Rashma, Law Per contra, counsel for the respondents has opposed the petition revision petition is not maintainable. He has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Division Benches of this Court in Godha Ram and another 1979 PLJ 5 Pritam Singh and another Vs. Sunder Lal and others 1990 (2) I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their challenged order, Annexure P-7, whereby an for appointment of a Local Commissioner has been with their restraining the respondents Trial Court directed over the suit property. Counsel asserts that when the respondents forcibly 2, under the police by submitting a defendants have order, petitioners filed an application, Annexure P-5, has been ntment conclusion as also encroached upon , Law the petition revision petition is not maintainable. He has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Division Benches of this Court in 562 1990 (2) I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their whereby an for appointment of a Local Commissioner has been Sheetal 2025.05.08 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CR-1209- declined. observed determines or adjudicates controversy. under Order 26 Rule 9 Pritam Singh’s case (supra) appoint a Local Commissioner parties and such an order cannot be assailed in a revision petition. The relevant observations of -2025 -3- In Harvinder Kaur’s case (supra) that a revision would lie against an interlocutory order determines or adjudicates some right or obligation of sy. It was held that a revision would not lie against under Order 26 Rule 9, CPC. Another Division Bench of this Court in Pritam Singh’s case (supra) came to the conclusion that appoint a Local Commissioner has nothing to do with the rights of the parties and such an order cannot be assailed in a revision petition. The relevant observations of the Division Bench are reproduced hereunder: “6. After going through the judgments cited in the reference order, we do not find that the earlier judgment in Harvinder Kaur v. Godha Ram, ILR 1979(1) Punjab and Haryana 147, requires any re order refusing to appoint a Local Commissioner does not decide any issue, nor adjudicates rights of the parties for the purpose of the suit and is, therefore, not revisable. The distinction sought to be made by the lear Judge in view of the Judgment in Ram v. Ghansham Dass, AIR 1975 Punjab and Haryana 174, clearly noticed by the Division Bench in Harvinder Kaur's case (supra) and it was observed: "It may be observed that the facts of Sadhu Ram Bali Ram's as in that case the onus of an issue had been wrongly placed and while deciding that question, it was held that such an order would be revisable." Apart from that, placing the onus of an issue has something to do with the rights of the parties whereas refusing to appoint a Commission under Order 26 Rule Harvinder Kaur’s case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court that a revision would lie against an interlocutory order only if it some right or obligation of the parties i revision would not lie against an order passed . Another Division Bench of this Court in came to the conclusion that an order refusing to s nothing to do with the rights of the parties and such an order cannot be assailed in a revision petition. The Bench are reproduced hereunder:- 6. After going through the judgments cited in the reference order, we do not find that the earlier judgment Harvinder Kaur v. Godha Ram, ILR 1979(1) Punjab , requires any re-consideration. The order refusing to appoint a Local Commissioner does not decide any issue, nor adjudicates rights of the parties for the purpose of the suit and is, therefore, not revisable. The distinction sought to be made by the learned Single Judge in view of the Judgment in M/s Sadhu Ram Bali Ram v. Ghansham Dass, AIR 1975 Punjab and , clearly noticed by the Division Bench in Harvinder Kaur's case (supra) and it was observed:- "It may be observed that the facts of M/s Sadhu Ram Bali Ram's case were different as in that case the onus of an issue had been wrongly placed and while deciding that question, it was held that such an order would be revisable." Apart from that, placing the onus of an issue has with the rights of the parties whereas refusing to appoint a Commission under Order 26 Rule , a Division Bench of this Court only if it the parties in passed . Another Division Bench of this Court in an order refusing to s nothing to do with the rights of the parties and such an order cannot be assailed in a revision petition. The 6. After going through the judgments cited in the reference order, we do not find that the earlier judgment Harvinder Kaur v. Godha Ram, ILR 1979(1) Punjab consideration. The order refusing to appoint a Local Commissioner does not decide any issue, nor adjudicates rights of the parties for the purpose of the suit and is, therefore, not revisable. ned Single M/s Sadhu Ram Bali Ram v. Ghansham Dass, AIR 1975 Punjab and , clearly noticed by the Division Bench in M/s case were different as in that case the onus of an issue had been wrongly placed and while deciding that question, it was held that such an order Apart from that, placing the onus of an issue has with the rights of the parties whereas refusing to appoint a Commission under Order 26 Rule Sheetal 2025.05.08 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CR-1209- 6. Court in 249. In view of the settled legal position, an order refusing to appoint Local Commissioner for the petitioners illegality in the order passed by the trial 7. order as to costs. 06.05.2025 sheetal -2025 -4- 9, Civil Procedure Code, has nothing to do with the rights of the parties as such. It is the discretion of the Court to appoint a Commission thereunder and if the Court refuses to appoint a Commission, then no right of any party can be said to be prejudiced as such. 7. In M/s. Sadhu Ram Bali Ram's held that when the matter is looked at keeping in view the provisions of the Evidence Act, then a decision given by the trial Court on the placing of onus of an issue wrongly certainly adjudicates for the purpose of the suit, some right or obligation of the parties in controversy and such an order would fall Under the circumstances, the opinion referred to stands already answered by the Division Bench of this Court in Harvinder Kaur's case (supra) and w requires re-consideration.” A similar view has been taken by a co Court in Smt. Raksha Devi Versus Madan Lal and others, 2017(3) PLR . In view of the settled legal position, an order refusing to appoint Local Commissioner is not revisable. The judgment for the petitioners do not address the issue in hand illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. Finding no merit in the revision petition, it order as to costs. .2025 Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No 9, Civil Procedure Code, has nothing to do with the rights of the parties as such. It is the discretion of the Court to appoint a Commission thereunder and if the ourt refuses to appoint a Commission, then no right of any party can be said to be prejudiced as such. M/s. Sadhu Ram Bali Ram's case (supra), it was held that when the matter is looked at keeping in view the provisions of the Evidence Act, then a decision given by the trial Court on the placing of onus of an issue wrongly certainly adjudicates for the purpose of the suit, some ht or obligation of the parties in controversy and such within the words "case decided". circumstances, the opinion referred to stands answered by the Division Bench of this Court in Harvinder Kaur's case (supra) and we do not think that it consideration.” A similar view has been taken by a co-ordinate Bench of this Smt. Raksha Devi Versus Madan Lal and others, 2017(3) PLR . In view of the settled legal position, an order refusing to appoint is not revisable. The judgment relied upon by counsel do not address the issue in hand. There is no perversity or Court. Finding no merit in the revision petition, it is dismissed with (SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No 9, Civil Procedure Code, has nothing to do with the rights of the parties as such. It is the discretion of the Court to appoint a Commission thereunder and if the ourt refuses to appoint a Commission, then no right of case (supra), it was held that when the matter is looked at keeping in view the provisions of the Evidence Act, then a decision given by the trial Court on the placing of onus of an issue wrongly certainly adjudicates for the purpose of the suit, some ht or obligation of the parties in controversy and such within the words "case decided". circumstances, the opinion referred to stands answered by the Division Bench of this Court in that it ordinate Bench of this Smt. Raksha Devi Versus Madan Lal and others, 2017(3) PLR . In view of the settled legal position, an order refusing to appoint a counsel . There is no perversity or is dismissed with no Sheetal 2025.05.08 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh