IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 279 CR-3240-2022 Date of Decision.:22.04.2025 Gurmukh Singh Pe//oner Vs. The Kalgidhar Trust Registered Gurudwara Barru Sahib Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Rahul, Advocate for the peoner. Mr. Ranjit Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the respondent. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Peoner is the defendant before trial Court in civil suit tled as ‘The Kalgidhar Trust Registered Gurdawara Barru Sahib v. Gurmukh Singh’. He moved an applicaon under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appoinng a revenue official as Local Commissioner so as to demarcate the property in dispute. The applicaon was dismissed by way of the impugned order dated 20.05.2022, which has been assailed by the peoner before this Court. Learned counsel contends that demarcang the property in dispute shall resolve the controversy between the pares. However learned counsel for the respondent has rightly pointed out that defendant i.e. peoner herein has laid his claim by filing a counter-claim on the basis of an earlier demarcaon report dated 20.10.2020. It is conceded by learned NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.22 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3240-2022 -2- counsel for the peoner that demarcaon report dated 20.10.2020 as relied by the peoner- defendant was also prepared by a revenue official. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order, declining the applicaon for appoinng a Local Commissioner. Dismissed. ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE April 22, 2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.22 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document