IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 112 CR-2383-2025 Date of Decision: 08.07.2025 NARESH KUMAR …..PETITIONER Vs. BALKAR SINGH AND OTHERS …..RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Ms. Akanksha Yadav, Advocate for the peoner. ****** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Peoner herein is plainff in Civil Suit bearing CIS-CS- 1120/2023 tled ‘Naresh Kumar Vs. Balkar Singh and Others’ pending before learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Panipat. He is aggrieved by the order dated 15.02.2025 (Annexure P-1) whereby his applicaon for appointment of Local Commissioner to ascertain the exisng posion of the suit property, has been declined by the trial Court. 2. It is contended by learned counsel that peoner-plainff is owner in possession of flat bearing No.D-1790, Ansal Sushant City, Panipat situated on the ground floor, consisng of common area as well as rear/back and front side lawn. As per the builder buyer agreement, peoner paid higher amount in lieu of facilies granted to him like the exclusive right to ulise the rear/back side lawn including washing area and front side lawn of the suit property. However, the defendants-respondents are causing interference and inmidang peoner-plainff in order to encroach upon the part of the suit property, specifically the rear lawn, by construcng pillars so as to extend rooms on their respecve floors. It is contended that in their site plan, defendants-respondents have shown the rear lawn including the washing area and the front lawn as the common area, which in fact is in the exclusive possession of the peoner-plainff and therefore, it is necessary to appoint a neutral person as Local PRIYANKA 2025.07.08 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2383-2025 -2- Commissioner to enable the Court to decide the rights of the pares in an effecve manner. However, said request has been declined by the Court. 3. A:er hearing learned counsel, this Court does not find any merit in the contenon. Whether the parcular poron of the flat, is exclusively owned by the peoner-plainff or is a common area, is a ma<er of evidence which is to be led by the pares. A Local Commissioner cannot be appointed so as to ascertain as to whether a parcular area is the common area or the area is exculsively owned by the peoner-plainff. 4. This Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order and as such, finding no merits in the peon, same is hereby dismissed. ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) 08.07.2025 JUDGE pry Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No PRIYANKA 2025.07.08 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document