CR-3845 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Narvair Singh Lakhvinder Singh @ Lakha CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate For the petitioner. DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The petitioner herein is plaintiff in civil suit No. 1314 of 2023, titled Narvair Singh Vs. Lakhvinder Singh @ Lakha Singh, Judge (Jr. Divn. (Annexure P-1), whereby trial Court has dismissed his application under Order 26 Rule IX CPC for appointment of local commissioner to ascertain the existing position at the spot. 2. The petitioner asserting his possession over the suit property comprised in Killa Nos.901 and 902, as detailed in the head restrain the respondent possession over the suit land. 3. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner moved an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC praying for appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect the spot and report application was founded on the plea that the petitioner had sown a crop of Jawar in the suit property and that the respondent had no concern with the said crop. It was, thus, contended that a local investigation was nece adjudication of the controversy. Page N: 1 of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CR No. 3845 of 2026(O&M) Date of Decision: 06.07.2026 Versus Lakhvinder Singh @ Lakha CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate For the petitioner. *** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The petitioner herein is plaintiff in civil suit No. 1314 of 2023, titled Narvair Singh Vs. Lakhvinder Singh @ Lakha Singh, Judge (Jr. Divn.), Panipat. He is aggrieved by the order dated 19.01.2026 1), whereby trial Court has dismissed his application under Order 26 Rule IX CPC for appointment of local commissioner to ascertain the existing position at the spot. The petitioner has instituted a suit for permanent injunction asserting his possession over the suit property comprised in Killa Nos.901 and 902, as detailed in the head-note of the plaint. The relief sought in the suit is to restrain the respondent-defendant from inter possession over the suit land. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner moved an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC praying for appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect the spot and report application was founded on the plea that the petitioner had sown a crop of in the suit property and that the respondent had no concern with the said crop. It was, thus, contended that a local investigation was nece adjudication of the controversy. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 3845 of 2026(O&M) Date of Decision: 06.07.2026 …Petitioner …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA The petitioner herein is plaintiff in civil suit No. 1314 of 2023, titled Narvair Singh Vs. Lakhvinder Singh @ Lakha Singh, pending before learned Civil ), Panipat. He is aggrieved by the order dated 19.01.2026 1), whereby trial Court has dismissed his application under Order 26 Rule IX CPC for appointment of local commissioner to ascertain the existing has instituted a suit for permanent injunction asserting his possession over the suit property comprised in Killa Nos.901 and note of the plaint. The relief sought in the suit is to defendant from interfering in his alleged peaceful During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner moved an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC praying for appointment of a Local the existing factual position. The application was founded on the plea that the petitioner had sown a crop of in the suit property and that the respondent had no concern with the said crop. It was, thus, contended that a local investigation was necessary for proper Petitioner Respondent The petitioner herein is plaintiff in civil suit No. 1314 of 2023, titled pending before learned Civil ), Panipat. He is aggrieved by the order dated 19.01.2026 1), whereby trial Court has dismissed his application under Order 26 Rule IX CPC for appointment of local commissioner to ascertain the existing has instituted a suit for permanent injunction asserting his possession over the suit property comprised in Killa Nos.901 and note of the plaint. The relief sought in the suit is to fering in his alleged peaceful During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner moved an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC praying for appointment of a Local the existing factual position. The application was founded on the plea that the petitioner had sown a crop of in the suit property and that the respondent had no concern with the said ssary for proper JITEN SHARMA 2026.07.06 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3845 of 2026 4. The learned trial Court dismissed the application holding that the burden to establish possession over the suit property squarely rested upon the plaintiff and that a Local Commissioner could not be ap of collecting evidence regarding possession. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned order. 6. Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC empowers the Court to appoint a Local Commissioner only where a l purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute or for ascertaining the market value of property, mesne profits or damages. The provision is intended to assist the Court in appreciating the physical features o incapable of being effectively brought before the Court through ordinary evidence. It is not intended to enable a litigating party to collect evidence in support of its own case. 7. The appointment of a Local Commissi the purpose of collecting evidence on behalf of a party. The Commissioner is an officer of the Court and not an agent of either litigant. The provisions of Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC cannot be invoked to discharge the burden of proo otherwise lies upon a party. 8. In where the real controversy pertains to possession, appointment of a Local Commissioner merely to ascertain which party is in possession would amoun collecting evidence for one of the parties, which is impermissible in law. 9. In the present case, the very foundation of the suit is the petitioner's assertion that he is in settled possession of the land comprised in specific Killa numbers. Whethe which is required to be established by leading cogent oral and documentary evidence, including the relevant revenue record. Merely because the petitioner alleges that he has sown a crop of appointment of a Local Commissioner. Any report regarding the crop standing Page N: 2 of 3 The learned trial Court dismissed the application holding that the burden to establish possession over the suit property squarely rested upon the plaintiff and that a Local Commissioner could not be ap of collecting evidence regarding possession. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned order. Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC empowers the Court to appoint a Local Commissioner only where a local investigation is necessary or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute or for ascertaining the market value of property, mesne profits or damages. The provision is intended to assist the Court in appreciating the physical features of the property or any factual aspect incapable of being effectively brought before the Court through ordinary evidence. It is not intended to enable a litigating party to collect evidence in support of its own case. The appointment of a Local Commissi the purpose of collecting evidence on behalf of a party. The Commissioner is an officer of the Court and not an agent of either litigant. The provisions of Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC cannot be invoked to discharge the burden of proo otherwise lies upon a party. In Pritam Singh v. Sunder Lal, 1990 (1) PLR 191, where the real controversy pertains to possession, appointment of a Local Commissioner merely to ascertain which party is in possession would amoun collecting evidence for one of the parties, which is impermissible in law. In the present case, the very foundation of the suit is the petitioner's assertion that he is in settled possession of the land comprised in specific Killa numbers. Whether he is in possession or not is the principal issue which is required to be established by leading cogent oral and documentary evidence, including the relevant revenue record. Merely because the petitioner alleges that he has sown a crop of Jawar on the su appointment of a Local Commissioner. Any report regarding the crop standing The learned trial Court dismissed the application holding that the burden to establish possession over the suit property squarely rested upon the plaintiff and that a Local Commissioner could not be appointed for the purpose I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC empowers the Court to appoint a Local ocal investigation is necessary or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute or for ascertaining the market value of property, mesne profits or damages. The provision is intended to assist the f the property or any factual aspect incapable of being effectively brought before the Court through ordinary evidence. It is not intended to enable a litigating party to collect evidence in The appointment of a Local Commissioner cannot be permitted for the purpose of collecting evidence on behalf of a party. The Commissioner is an officer of the Court and not an agent of either litigant. The provisions of Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC cannot be invoked to discharge the burden of proof which 1990 (1) PLR 191, it was held that where the real controversy pertains to possession, appointment of a Local Commissioner merely to ascertain which party is in possession would amount to collecting evidence for one of the parties, which is impermissible in law. In the present case, the very foundation of the suit is the petitioner's assertion that he is in settled possession of the land comprised in r he is in possession or not is the principal issue which is required to be established by leading cogent oral and documentary evidence, including the relevant revenue record. Merely because the petitioner on the suit land does not justify appointment of a Local Commissioner. Any report regarding the crop standing The learned trial Court dismissed the application holding that the burden to establish possession over the suit property squarely rested upon the pointed for the purpose I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC empowers the Court to appoint a Local ocal investigation is necessary or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute or for ascertaining the market value of property, mesne profits or damages. The provision is intended to assist the f the property or any factual aspect incapable of being effectively brought before the Court through ordinary evidence. It is not intended to enable a litigating party to collect evidence in oner cannot be permitted for the purpose of collecting evidence on behalf of a party. The Commissioner is an officer of the Court and not an agent of either litigant. The provisions of Order f which it was held that where the real controversy pertains to possession, appointment of a Local t to In the present case, the very foundation of the suit is the petitioner's assertion that he is in settled possession of the land comprised in r he is in possession or not is the principal issue which is required to be established by leading cogent oral and documentary evidence, including the relevant revenue record. Merely because the petitioner it land does not justify appointment of a Local Commissioner. Any report regarding the crop standing JITEN SHARMA 2026.07.06 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3845 of 2026 on the date of inspection would only depict the position existing on that particular day and would neither conclusively establish lawful possession nor determine the rights of the parties. 10. More importantly, possession over agricultural land comprised in specified khasra or killa numbers is essentially a matter requiring adjudication on appreciation of evidence during trial. A Local Commissioner cannot authorised to return findings regarding possession, as that would virtually amount to collecting evidence for the plaintiff and would trench upon the adjudicatory function of the Court itself. 11. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction of the Constitution of India, this Court does not sit as a Court of appeal over discretionary interlocutory orders passed by the trial Court. Unless the order suffers from patent perversity, jurisdictional error or manifest miscarriage of justice, supervisory interference is unwarranted. 12. The learned trial Court has rightly concluded that the petitioner must establish his possession by leading independent evidence and that appointment of a Local Commissioner for such purpose is legall The discretion exercised by the trial Court is perfectly in consonance with the settled principles governing Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC and does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity or material irregularity warranting interferen under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. Consequently, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed. 14. It is, however, clarified that nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression on the shall decide the same independently on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties. 06.07.2026 Jiten Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Page N: 3 of 3 on the date of inspection would only depict the position existing on that particular day and would neither conclusively establish lawful possession nor ermine the rights of the parties. More importantly, possession over agricultural land comprised in specified khasra or killa numbers is essentially a matter requiring adjudication on appreciation of evidence during trial. A Local Commissioner cannot authorised to return findings regarding possession, as that would virtually amount to collecting evidence for the plaintiff and would trench upon the adjudicatory function of the Court itself. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction of the Constitution of India, this Court does not sit as a Court of appeal over discretionary interlocutory orders passed by the trial Court. Unless the order suffers from patent perversity, jurisdictional error or manifest miscarriage of justice, supervisory interference is unwarranted. The learned trial Court has rightly concluded that the petitioner must establish his possession by leading independent evidence and that appointment of a Local Commissioner for such purpose is legall The discretion exercised by the trial Court is perfectly in consonance with the settled principles governing Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC and does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity or material irregularity warranting interferen under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed. It is, however, clarified that nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the suit and the learned trial Court shall decide the same independently on the basis of the evidence adduced by Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No on the date of inspection would only depict the position existing on that particular day and would neither conclusively establish lawful possession nor More importantly, possession over agricultural land comprised in specified khasra or killa numbers is essentially a matter requiring adjudication on appreciation of evidence during trial. A Local Commissioner cannot be authorised to return findings regarding possession, as that would virtually amount to collecting evidence for the plaintiff and would trench upon the It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not sit as a Court of appeal over discretionary interlocutory orders passed by the trial Court. Unless the order suffers from patent perversity, jurisdictional error or manifest miscarriage of justice, supervisory interference is unwarranted. The learned trial Court has rightly concluded that the petitioner must establish his possession by leading independent evidence and that appointment of a Local Commissioner for such purpose is legally impermissible. The discretion exercised by the trial Court is perfectly in consonance with the settled principles governing Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC and does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity or material irregularity warranting interferen Consequently, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the It is, however, clarified that nothing observed herein shall be merits of the suit and the learned trial Court shall decide the same independently on the basis of the evidence adduced by (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No on the date of inspection would only depict the position existing on that particular day and would neither conclusively establish lawful possession nor More importantly, possession over agricultural land comprised in specified khasra or killa numbers is essentially a matter requiring adjudication on be authorised to return findings regarding possession, as that would virtually amount to collecting evidence for the plaintiff and would trench upon the under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not sit as a Court of appeal over discretionary interlocutory orders passed by the trial Court. Unless the order suffers from patent perversity, jurisdictional error or manifest miscarriage of The learned trial Court has rightly concluded that the petitioner must establish his possession by leading independent evidence and that y impermissible. The discretion exercised by the trial Court is perfectly in consonance with the settled principles governing Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC and does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity or material irregularity warranting interference Consequently, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the It is, however, clarified that nothing observed herein shall be merits of the suit and the learned trial Court shall decide the same independently on the basis of the evidence adduced by JITEN SHARMA 2026.07.06 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document