Sr. No. 131 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case: CM(M) No. 161/2025 Gandharb Singh …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Bhavesh Bhushan, Advocate V/s Rangail Singh and others ... Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICEVINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE ORDER 03.09.2025 1. By the medium of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 28.05.2025 passed by the learned Sub-Judge (Special Mobile Magistrate), Kathua in a Suit for Permanent Prohibitory Injunction bearing No. Rest./13/2025 (CNR No. JKKT020000862025), titled “Gandharb Singh versus Kashmir Singh and Ors.”, whereby Naib-Tehsildar, Mahanpur has been appointed as Local Commissioner to inspect and demarcate the suit land. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon judgment dated 08.03.2022 passed by this Court in CM(M) No. 74/2021, titled “Ram Kumar vs. Raman Kumar and Others”. -2- CM(M) No. 161/2025 On the previous date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner had sought time to examine the said judgment. 3. Upon perusal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment relied upon by the respondents is distinguishable on facts and does not apply to the present case. He further relies upon judgment dated 13.03.2025 passed by this Court in CM(M) No. 201/2023, titled “Saraj Din vs. Liyaqat Ali”, wherein the parties were asserting rival possession over the same piece of land. It is contended that the application for appointment of Local Commissioner in the present case is premature and not maintainable. 4. Per contra, Mr. Jagpaul Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the judgment in Saraj Din’s case(supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. It is submitted that, unlike in Saraj Din’s case, where the dispute pertained to rival claims over the same land, in the present matter the parties are claiming possession over different parcels of land, and the controversy is limited to demarcation of boundaries. It is further submitted that the facts of the present case are squarely covered by the ratio laid down in Ram Kumar’s case (supra). 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgments cited. 6. The reliance placed by the petitioner on Saraj Din’s case (supra)is misconceived. In that case, both parties claimed -3- CM(M) No. 161/2025 possession over the samepiece of land, and the Court observed that the application for appointment of a Local Commissioner could be entertained only after framing of issues. However, in the present case, both parties assert possession over different parcels of land, and the dispute pertains to the boundary demarcation between their respective lands. In such a situation, there is no bar to the appointment of a Local Commissioner at a pre-issue stage, particularly when the object is to facilitate identification and demarcation of the suit land. 7. In view of the above, I find no illegality or perversity in the order dated 28.05.2025 passed by the learned Sub-Judge (Special Mobile Magistrate), Kathua appointing the Naib-Tehsildar, Mahanpur as Local Commissioner. The objection raised by the petitioner is, therefore, without merit. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 9. However, it is clarified that the learned Trial Court shall proceed with the matter strictly on merits, uninfluenced by any observation made in this order, which is only for the purposes of deciding the present petition. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE Jammu 03.09.2025 AKHILESH BIR BAHADUR SINGH 2025.09.24 11:21 I am the author of this document