GURDIAL SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, MORINDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision is filed against the order of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ropar, dated Dec. 9, 1997, refusing to appoint the Local Commissioner for inspection of the suit site.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel and going through the order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ropar, I am of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is no doubt true that the Commissioner cannot determine the question of possession and that it is for the Court to decide it on the basis of evidence. The petitioners are only seeking appointment of Local Commissioner to show the existence of certain facts at the suit site, namely, whether there was any demolition atthe suit site and whether there are any structures etc. The purpose of seeking appointment of Local Commissioner to make the local inspection, is to get the best evidence which is available at the spot. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the order refusing to appoint the Local Commissioner to inspect the suit site cannot be sustained.

(3.) I accordingly set aside the order of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ropar, dated Dec. 9, 1997, and direct the Trial Court to appoint the Local Commissioner to inspect the suit site and submit his report within the time fixed by the Court. However, it is made clear that the expenses for the Local Commissioner shall be borne by the petitioners themselves irrespective of the result of the suit. Parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on the date fixed by it for further proceedings.