Revision petition challenging the trial court's refusal to appoint a Local Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. The High Court held the petition devoid of merits as parties admitted the factual position.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 24 of 2012 Date of Decision: 27.03.2012
Sukhmander Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
Gurdit Singh and others ..Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.PURI.
Present : Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. ****
K.C.PURI .J.(Oral)
Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 07.11.2011 passed by the learned Trial Court vide which the application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'C.P.C.') moved by the petitioner for appointment of a Local Commissioner was declined.
Briefly stated, Gurdit Singh plaintiff (now respondent No.1) has filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property except in due course of law. He has pleaded that he is owner of the suit property. In the written statement the defendants have denied this assertion and pleaded that the property is joint Hindu Family property and the defendants have raised the construction over the same.
During the pendency of the civil suit, an application under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. for appointment of the Local Commissioner was moved by the defendants (now petitioner) before the learned trial Court to ascertain the factual position at the spot. That application was resisted and the same was dismissed. The said order of dismissal has been challenged in the present revision petition by the petitioner-defendants.
Civil Revision No. 24 of 2012 [2]
The learned trial Court has observed that the Local Commissioner cannot be appointed to collect the evidence in a suit. So far as the factual position is concerned, that has been admitted by the parties and as such there is no need for appointment of a Local Commissioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not assail that findings during the course of arguments.
Consequently, the revision petition is devoid of merits and the
same stands dismissed.
27.03.2012
'ravinder'
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court properly declined the appointment of a Local Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. in a civil suit.
Whether the absence of disputed facts on the title owner or the suitability of the spot for evidence collection warrants dismissal of the revision petition.
Sukhmander Singh
Gurdit Singh and others
K. C. Puri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
