The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed the civil revision petition challenging the lower court's rejection of an application for appointment of a Local Commissioner. The court held such orders are not maintainable in revision.
Petitioner's civil revision petition was dismissed on grounds of non-maintainability.
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.
Civil Revision No. 3135 of 2012
(1)
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 3135 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision : 29.5.2012
Jai Singh
... Petitioner
vs
Bhupinder Singh and another
... Respondents
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. S. P. Soi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Rajesh Bindal, J.
Challenge in the present petition is to order dated 30.4.2012 passed by the learned court below whereby the application of the petitioner for appointment of Local Commissioner was rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed a suit for possession against the respondents. The petitioner filed application for appointment of Local Commissioner. He submitted that appointment of Local Commissioner is required to report about the existence of two rooms, kitchen and veranda in disputed property, which the defendants are denying. To prove this fact appointment of Local Commissioner is material as his detailed report of the factual position at the site would clear as to whether the stand taken by the petitioner or the respondents is correct.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. It has been consistently opined by this court that an order passed by the court below either appointing or refusing to appoint Local Commissioner neither decides any issue nor adjudicates rights of the parties for the purpose of suit and no revision against the same was held to be maintainable. Reference can be made to a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Pritam Singh and another vs Sunder Lal and others 1990 (2) Punjab Law Reporter 191. Even subsequent thereto, this
Civil Revision No. 3135 of 2012
(2)
For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition, as in terms of the consistent enunciation of law, referred to above, the present petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
29.5.2012 vs.
( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a revision is maintainable against the learned court's order rejecting the petitioner's application for appointment of a Local Commissioner.
Whether the consistent view of earlier judgments that such orders do not decide issues or adjudicate rights makes revision impracticable.
Whether the petitioner can challenge the rejection of the application for appointment of a Local Commissioner in a civil revision petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pritam Singh and another vs Sunder Lal and othersReferred¶16
1990 (2) Punjab Law Reporter 191
Smt. Shobha Sahni vs Prem LataReferred¶20
2002 (4) RCR (Civil) 372
Hari Om vs Manish KumarReferred¶21
2005 (2) HRR 246
Sumer Chand Jain vs Vishnu Bhagwan ManglaReferred¶22
2006 (2) R. C. R. (Civil) 445
Bant Singh alias Balwant Singh and another vs Raghubir Singh and othersReferred¶23
2008 (4) RCR (Civil) 260
Rajiv Kumar Batra vs Kashmiri Lal SikaReferred¶24
2010 (6) R. C. R. (Civil) 37
Jai Singh
Bhupinder Singh and another
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
