The High Court in revision held that appointing a Local Commissioner to inspect property identity is impermissible for challenge when rival contentions exist, as it aids effective adjudication and secures best evidence under Article 227.
Impugned order appointing Local Commissioner confirmed; revision petition dismissed.
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.
CR No. 5225 of 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
CR No. 5225 of 2012 Date of decision September 7, 2012
Kulwinder Singh
....... Petitioner
Versus
Nasib Kaur
........ Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:Mr. Kanwardeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
K. Kannan, J (oral).
2
CR No. 5225 of 2012
before this Court in revision by contending that there is no dispute with reference to the identity of the property at all and therefore there cannot be any justification for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE
September 7, 2012 archana
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an order appointing a Local Commissioner to ascertain property identity can be challenged under Article 227.
Whether presence of rival contentions regarding property physical features justifies a Local Commissioner appointment.
Kulwinder Singh
Nasib Kaur
K. KANNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
