OM PARKASH Vs. KISHAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER plaintiff-tenant has, assailed the trial Court's outer dated 17. 5. 1996, whereby this petition filed the suit under Section 151 read with Order 26 Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code, is being disallowed.

(2.) SUCCINCTLY facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act alleging that he was a tenant on first and second floor of the disputed property No. 148/6-A situated in Chowk Kuluwala, Peeri Gali, Amritsar since 1952. For 15 days he went out of Amritsar in the month of November, 1993. On 22. 11. 1993 when he came back he found that the defendant-landlords have broken the lock of the premises and have removed his stocks: and thus, have; forcibly occupied the premises. He made, report to the police, but no action was taken by them. He filed this suit on 1. 12. 1993 claiming restoration of possession of the demised premises Along-with this suit he also filed the petition under order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure code, restraining the respondent-landlords from transferring or parting with the possession of the premises to any third person, that petition was decided on 1. 2. 1996. After ad interim injunction was granted, the defendant-respondents started taking steps to use the premises for their own use and occupation. On 11. 5. 1994 the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application for locking and sealing the premises through the Local Commissioner so that the defendant-respondents may not take undue advantage of forcible dispossession of the plaintiff-petitioner. This petition was dismissed by the impugned order.

(3.) RESPONDENTS ' learned counsel relying on Smt. Harvin Kaur v. Godha Ram and Anr. , 1979 PLj 562 and Pritam Singh and Anr. v. Sunder Lal, (1990-2)98 P. L. R. 191 contended that since the plaintiff- petitioner's petition filed under Order 26 Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code, was dismissed by the impugned order, this revision assailing the same order is not maintainable. No doubt, in these authorities, it is held that the order passed under Order 26 Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code, refusing, to appoint a Local Commissioner is not revisable as the impugned order does hot decide any issue nor adjudicates the rights of the parties for purposes of suit.