IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 131 Faqiria (now deceased) through LRs and others Rajinder Kumar CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) order dated 29.4.2025 (Annexure P (Jr. Divn.), Rajpura in Execution Petition No.69 of 2022 titled as “Rajinder Kumar vs. Faqiria and others” vide which the application of the petitioner for appointment of any revenue official to exact location, metes and bounds of the suit property and to submit the report regarding the same has been dismissed. the first instance as it is established position in law, that an 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 others”, Law Finder Doc Id # 827241 that order appointing or dismissing application for appointment of CR-3134-2025 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3134 of 2025 Date of decision : Faqiria (now deceased) through LRs and others Versus Rajinder Kumar CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Simranjeet Singh Sarwara, Advocate for the petitioners. NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) Prayer in this revision petition is for setting aside the dated 29.4.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Rajpura in Execution Petition No.69 of 2022 titled as “Rajinder Kumar vs. Faqiria and others” vide which the application of the petitioner for appointment of any revenue official to exact location, metes and bounds of the suit property and to submit the report regarding the same has been dismissed. The prayer of the petitioners the first instance as it is established position in law, that an 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 others”, Law Finder Doc Id # 827241 that order appointing or dismissing application for appointment of 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ivil Revision No.3134 of 2025 (O & M) Date of decision :-21.05.2025 Faqiria (now deceased) through LRs and others …..Petitioners …..Respondent HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Simranjeet Singh Sarwara, Advocate Prayer in this revision petition is for setting aside the 6) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Rajpura in Execution Petition No.69 of 2022 titled as “Rajinder Kumar vs. Faqiria and others” vide which the application of the petitioner for appointment of any revenue official to demarcate the exact location, metes and bounds of the suit property and to submit the report regarding the same has been dismissed. s is liable to be rejected in 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 Dass v Sunita Rani @ Sarita Rani and others”, Law Finder Doc Id # 827241, wherein it has been held that order appointing or dismissing application for appointment of VIJAY ASIJA 2025.05.23 17.10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 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. 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 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 us orders allowing appointment, or rejecting appointment, of Local Commissioner, are not amenable to revisional jurisdiction. for withdrawal of May 21, 202 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No CR-3134-2025 (O & M) 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 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. Refusing to appoint, or appointing, a Commissioner has nothing to do with the rights of the parties and it 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. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the present petition. Permitted to do so. Dismissed as withdrawn. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No 2 Local Commission is not revisable. Even two Division Benches of Harvinder Kaur v Godha Ram”, 1979 PLJ Pritam Singh v 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 refusing 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 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 evidence on behalf of either party. Thus, orders allowing appointment, or rejecting appointment, of Local Commissioner, are not amenable to revisional jurisdiction. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2025.05.23 17.10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document