ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL Vs. PARMOD ASHRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is impugning the order dtd. 13/10/2021 (Annexure P-3) passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Jind vide which his application filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC r/w Sec. 151 CPC for appointment of local commissioner was dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the impugned order is contrary to the settled principles of law and thus, deserves to be set aside. He has submitted that the trial Court while passing the impugned order failed to appreciate that the report of the local commissioner qua the possession over the suit property, after carrying out demarcation would help in the just and effective adjudication of the issue in dispute between the parties. He further submits that the respondents have been trying to illegally dispossess the petitioner from the suit property and have also been disputing their ownership, therefore, the appointment of a local commissioner would go a long way in assisting the Court to ascertain the ownership of the suit property as per the title records and documents. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana Waqf Board vs. Shanti Sarup and others, 2008(8) SCC 671.

(3.) Per contra learned counsel for the respondents have controverted the submissions made by counsel opposite and contended that the revision petition against an order declining the appointment of a local commissioner is per se not maintainable. He has further submitted that the petitioner has instituted a suit for declaration qua the ownership, therefore, the petitioner would have to lead evidence in support of his case and cannot lean on the shoulders of the Court to collect evidence. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments of Coordinate Bench of this Court in Deva Singh vs. Mohinder Singh and others, 2022(3) RCR (Civil) 444, Rajiv Kumar Batra vs. Kashmiri Lal Sika, 2010(6) RCR (Civil) 37 and Pritam Singh and others vs. Sunder Lal and others, 1990 (2) PLR 191.