KAURA RAM Vs. SHEO NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kaura Ram has filed this revision against the order dated 16th September, 1983 of the learned Sub-Judge IInd Class, Hissar, whereby he had rejected an application moved by the petitioner under Rule 9, Order 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for appointment of a Local Commissioner. It was averred in the application that the dispute between the parties was as to whether the suit land was part of Khasra No. 1121. The plaintiff-petitioner had clearly delineated the suit property in the site plan attached with the plaint. The land in possession of the defendant was also clearly demarcated therein. The plaintiff wanted to get the boundary of the land in dispute ascertained from the Local Commissioner. The application was resisted by the defendant. The learned trial Judge dismissed the same.

(2.) The revision petition is not competent. By declining to appoint a Local Commissioner, the learned trial Judge did not determine or adjudicate upon any right or obligation of the parties in controversy. Vide impugned order the learned trial Judge has not decided any case. It is not necessary to dilate on the subject because it stands concluded against the petitioner, by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Harvinder Kaur v. Godha Ram, etc., 1979 1 ILR(P&H) 147. In that case the following question was referred for decision to the Division Bench :-

(3.) In fairness to Mr. Sarin it must be stated that he had argued that the matter had not been finally decided by the Division Bench. He drew my pointed attention to para 12 of Harvinder Kaur's case , where it has been observed that :-