DEVI SINGH Vs. PRITAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dtd. 1/11/2018 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar vide which application for appointment of Local Commissioner was dismissed.

(2.) The plaintiffs/respondent no.1 and 2 filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/petitioner from interfering into the joint possession of the plaintiffs and further from dispossesing, creating hindrance in peaceful user and irrigation of fields of plaintiffs from the joint motor connection bearing no. AP38/0407 situated over the land as detailed in the headnote of the plaint. . In the said suit, application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC read with Sec. 151 CPC was moved by the defendant/petitioner for appointment of Local Commissioner to verify the factual position at the site especially with regard to the tube-well used by the plaintiff, Pritam Singh. It was submitted by the defendant/petitioner that plaintiffs have wrongly stated in their suit that they are using motor of Devi Singh and Vinod Kumari for irrigation, but they are using the motors of Ram Singh and Ujjagar Singh.

(3.) The application was contested by the plaintiffs/respondents on the ground that the appointment of Local Commissioner would amount to collection/creation of evidence and assistance of the Court cannot be taken by the defendant/ petitioner to prove his possession.