However, it is well settled that it is duty of the Court to determine as to which party is in possession of the suit property and this function of the Court cannot be delegated to local commissioner. Even in the case of Baljinder Singh (supra) relied on by counsel for the petitioner himself, it was held that Local Commissioner cannot be appointed to report as to which party is in possession of the suit property. Consequently prayer of petitioner plaintiff for appointment of Local Commissioner to report as to who is in actual possession of the suit property has been rightly declined by the trial Court. In the case of Baljinder Singh (supra), plaintiff alleged that there were mangers, water tanks and trees in the suit property whereas the defendant alleged that there were two rooms and verendah in the suit property. In view of this nature of the dispute in that case that appointment of local commissioner to ascertain actual and factual position at the spot was upheld by this Court. In the instant case, however, there is no dispute regarding existence or non-existence of any structure in the suit property and therefore, the question of appointing local commissioner to report about factual and actual position at the spot does not arise. The plaintiff sought appointment of local commissioner to determine as to which party is in actual and factual possession of the suit property. This is not permissible under the law.
