NARANJAN SINGH Vs. SATWINDER SINGH AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution prays for setting aside order dated 27.10.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Barnala declining the request of the plaintiff -petitioner for appointment of the Local Commissioner on the ground that already report of a Local Commissioner Shri Varinder Kumar, Goyal, Advocate appointed by the Court is on record. The objection has been raised to the report on the ground that aforementioned Local Commissioner was appointed exparte and no notice to the defendant -respondents was given. It has further been observed that the plaintiff -petitioner is adducing his evidence and he can very well examine the aforementioned Local Commissioner who in turn can be subjected to cross -examination by the defendant -respondents.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel, I find that two Division Benches of this Court in the cases of Smt. Harvinder Kaur and Anr. v/s. Godha Ram and Anr. , 1979 P.L.J. 562 and Pritam Singh v/s. Sunder Lal have taken the view that the order declining the application for appointment of Local Commissioner cannot be subjected to a revision petition as it cannot be treated as a case decided. The plaintiff -petitioner cannot circumvent the provisions of Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code') merely by substituting the title of the revision petition and claiming that the same has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. The provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution can be invoked only in cases where manifest injustice has been caused to the interest of a party. The fact of possession cannot be ascertained by the Local Commissioner as has been rightly held by the learned Civil Judge. No manifest injustice warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution has been caused. The Supreme Court has consistently taken the view that in the absence of any manifest injustice, Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be invoked. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Ouseph Mathus v/s. : AIR2002SC110 and Virendra Kashinath Ravat and Anr. v/s. : AIR1999SC162 .

(3.) The instant petition has been filed merely by circumventing the provisions of Sec. 115 of the Code by substituting the title claiming that it has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. The ratio of two Division Bench judgments in the cases of Smt. Harvinder Kaur (supra) and Pritam Singh (supra) would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.