SURINDER KAUR Vs. RAWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit for bare injunction which was filed way-back on 8.1.2007, the plaintiff moved an application for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner at a stage when the matter was posted for rebuttal and arguments.

(2.) The trial Court dismissed the said application on two grounds. One, there has been a lapse on the part of the plaintiff in moving an application for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner in time. Secondly, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to collect evidence in the garb of appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner, more especially in a suit for bare injunction.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that during the pendency of the suit some change had been made in the street which is the subject-matter of the suit. The Electricity Department also had installed some pillars for supply of electricity. Therefore, it is his submission that, the changes made on the disputed property will have to be brought to the notice of the Court by way of appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner. It is his further submission that the delay, if any, cannot be the sole ground to reject the application filed for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner.