CR-3966-2024 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-3966-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.09.2025 Mohan Singh @ Jasvir Singh ...Pe''oner Versus Jaspinder Kaur ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Ms. Bhavna Kapur, Advocate (Through VC) for the pe''oner. Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) CM-18532-CII-2025 This is an applica'on under Sec'on 151 CPC for placing on record the copy of agreement to sell dated 21.05.2019. For the reasons men'oned in the applica'on, the same is allowed, subject to all just excep'ons. Copy of agreement to sell dated 21.05.2019 (Annexure P-6) is taken on record. CR-3966-2024 Pe''oner herein is the defendant in civil suit bearing CS-167- 2020 'tled ‘Jaspinder Kaur Vs. Mohan Singh @ Jasvir Singh’, pending before Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar. He is aggrieved by the order dated 28.05.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the trial Court, whereby the applica'on for appointment of Local Commissioner to inspect the suit property for the purpose of assessing the actual value of the same, was declined. 2. Plain'ff-respondent sought decree for specific performance of Yogesh Mehta 2025.09.16 14:23 I agree to specified portions of this document CR-3966-2024 (O&M) [2] an agreement to sell dated 21.05.2019 executed by the defendant in her favour. As per the agreement to sell, total sale considera'on of the suit property was agreed to be ₹16,50,000/-. Defendant in the wriBen statement disputed the agreement. He further claimed that value of the suit property was more than ₹50,00,000/-. 3. Defendant moved applica'on to appoint an expert i.e. Sh. R.S. Bawa, Civil Engineer to enter the premises for the purpose of assessing the actual value of the suit property. However, the said applica'on was rejected by way of the impugned order. 4. Assailing the order, it is contended by learned counsel that since the pe''oner-defendant is not in possession of the property in dispute, so the local inspec'on of the said property was necessary through an expert to assess its actual value. 5. Opposing the pe''on, learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that pe''oner has already produced the valua'on report dated 13.11.2024 before the trial court and even the par'es have concluded their evidence and the case is now fixed for rebuBal evidence, if any and for arguments. 6. ADer hearing learned counsel, this Court does not find merit in the conten'on. 7. No doubt, Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers a Court to order for the local inves'ga'on by issuing a commission but purpose of the said provision is not to collect the evidence on behalf of either of the party. The purpose of the provision is to obtain such evidence, which from its peculiar nature, can only be gathered on inspec'ng the spot with a view to elucidate any point, which is leD doubHul on the evidence produced before the Court. Yogesh Mehta 2025.09.16 14:23 I agree to specified portions of this document CR-3966-2024 (O&M) [3] 8. In this case, the plain'ff-respondent sought specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 21.05.2019, as per the sale considera'on men'oned in the said agreement. As such, defendant- pe''oner was not jus'fied seeking the local inspec'on of the suit property for assessment of its market value. Trial Court did not commit any error in rejec'ng the said request. 9. As such, this Court does not find merit in the revision, in the absence of any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Dismissed. 15.09.2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No Yogesh Mehta 2025.09.16 14:23 I agree to specified portions of this document