RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. SUKHDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 26.11.2011, passed by the court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for appointment of a Local Commissioner, was rejected.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent-defendant from interfering into the lawful possession of the shop in question. During the pendency of suit, an application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of Local Commissioner was filed. The same having been dismissed by the court below vide impugned order, the petitioner-plaintiff is before this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Local Commissioner was required to be appointed to bring on record the factual position at the spot pertaining to the shop in question. He further submitted that in the written statement filed by the respondent-defendant, he stated that he had no concern with the shop in dispute. In fact, the same is lying locked. The locks may be ordered to be broken and shop be opened. In support of his submissions, reliance was placed upon Shri Behari Lal Charitable Trust v. Shiv Batra and another, 2010 4 RCR(Civ) 81 and Baljinder Singh v. Sukhdev Singh, 2011 2 LawHerald(P&H) 1806.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. It has been consistently opined by this court that an order passed by the court below either appointing Local Commissioner or refusing to appoint Local Commissioner neither decides any issue nor adjudicates rights of the parties for the purpose of suit and no revision against the same was held to be maintainable. Reference can be made to a Division Bench judgment of this court in Pritam Singh and another v. Sunder Lal and others, 1990 98 PunLR 191. Even subsequent thereto, this court had consistently opined in the same lines in the following judgments: