IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 131 Sukhdev Singh and another Bhupinder Singh and others CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) the Consti (Annexure P Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar has dismissed the application of the petitioner Local Comm 2. perused the case file in great detail. 3. the first instance as it is established position in law, that an order allowing or reje appointment of Local Commissioner is not a revisable order. The present revision petition is not maintainable in view of judgment of this Court in CR-2486-2025 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2486 of 2025 Date of decision : Sukhdev Singh and another Versus Bhupinder Singh and others CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate for the petitioners. NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) Prayer in the present petition the Constitution of India is for setting aside (Annexure P-5) passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar whereby the learned has dismissed the application of the petitioner Local Commissioner. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner perused the case file in great detail. The prayer of the petitioners 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 in “Banarsi Dass v Sunita Rani @ Sarita Rani and 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2486 of 2025 (O & M) Date of decision :-28.04.2025 …..Petitioners …..Respondents HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Naveen Batra, Advocate resent petition filed under Article 227 of India is for setting aside of order dated 18.3.2025 ) passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sri whereby the learned trial Court has dismissed the application of the petitioners for appointment of I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and s is liable to be rejected in the first instance as it is established position in law, that an order cting 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 Dass v Sunita Rani @ Sarita Rani and VIJAY ASIJA 2025.04.30 18.43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document others”, Law that order appointing or dismissing application for appointment of Local Commission is not revisable. Even this Court in 562 and “ held that Revision Petition is not maintainable against an order of the Court below dismissing or allowing an application for appointment of Local Commissioner. 4. 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 revisable. Commissioner has nothing to do with the rights of t is purely the discretion of the Court. 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 orders allowing appointment, or rejecting appointment, of Local Commissioner, are not amenable to revisional jurisdiction. 5. has noticed in the impugned order for appointment of local commissioner has been filed by the applicants/plaintiffs in the present suit, which is simpliciter suit for permanent injunction. The grounds taken in the present application regarding nature, cons to be proved by the applicants/plaintiffs by leading cogent evidence. CR-2486-2025 (O & M) others”, Law Finder Doc Id # 827241 that order appointing or dismissing application for appointment of Local Commission is not revisable. Even this Court in “Harvinder Kaur v Godha Ram”, 1979 PLJ “Pritam Singh v Sunder Lal”, 1990(2) PLR 191 held that Revision Petition is not maintainable against an order the Court below dismissing or allowing an application for appointment of Local Commissioner. It is the consistent position in law, that an order efusing 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 revisable. Refusing to appoint, or appointing, a Commissioner has nothing to do with the rights of t 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 to collect evidence on behalf of either party. orders allowing appointment, or rejecting appointment, of Local Commissioner, are not amenable to revisional jurisdiction. Moreover, in the present case the learned has noticed in the impugned order that “… for appointment of local commissioner has been filed by the applicants/plaintiffs in the present suit, which is simpliciter suit for permanent injunction. The grounds taken in the present application regarding nature, construction, boundary dispute etc. are required to be proved by the applicants/plaintiffs by leading cogent evidence. 2 Finder Doc Id # 827241, wherein it has been held that order appointing or dismissing application for appointment of Local Commission is not revisable. Even two Division Benches of Harvinder Kaur v Godha Ram”, 1979 PLJ Sunder Lal”, 1990(2) PLR 191, have held that Revision Petition is not maintainable against an order the Court below dismissing or allowing an application for It is the consistent position in law, that an order efusing to appoint Local Commissioner does not decide any issue nor adjudicate any rights of the parties for the purpose of the suit Refusing to appoint, or appointing, a Commissioner has nothing to do with the rights of the parties and it 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 ce on behalf of either party. Thus, orders allowing appointment, or rejecting appointment, of Local Commissioner, are not amenable to revisional jurisdiction. Moreover, in the present case the learned Civil Judge “…..The present application for appointment of local commissioner has been filed by the applicants/plaintiffs in the present suit, which is simpliciter suit for permanent injunction. The grounds taken in the present application truction, boundary dispute etc. are required to be proved by the applicants/plaintiffs by leading cogent evidence. VIJAY ASIJA 2025.04.30 18.43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document So, keeping in view the fact that the present suit is simpliciter suit for permanent injunction, therefore, if the present application for appointment of local commissioner in the simple suit for permanent injunction is allowed, then it would amount to collecting the evidence which is not legally permissible….” 6. controvert the legal position as noticed above. 7. 8. April 28, 202 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No CR-2486-2025 (O & M) So, keeping in view the fact that the present suit is simpliciter suit for permanent injunction, therefore, if the present application for ppointment of local commissioner in the simple suit for permanent injunction is allowed, then it would amount to collecting the evidence which is not legally permissible….” Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No 3 So, keeping in view the fact that the present suit is simpliciter suit for permanent injunction, therefore, if the present application for ppointment of local commissioner in the simple suit for permanent injunction is allowed, then it would amount to collecting the evidence which is not legally permissible….”. Learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to controvert the legal position as noticed above. In view of the above present petition is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2025.04.30 18.43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document