Revision petition against dismissal of an application for appointing a Local Commissioner to record construction status on suit property in a violation-of-status-quo proceeding. The court held a Local Commissioner cannot collect evidence for a party and such an order is not revisable, dismissing the revision.
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.
132
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.2999 of 2024 Date of Decision: 16.05.2024
Suresh Kumar Sharma
.....Revisionist-Petitioner.
Versus
Surender Kumar
.....Respondent.
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Present:Mr. Afjal Hussain, Advocate for the revisionist-petitioner.
MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J . (Oral)
By filing the instant revision-petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-plaintiff (here-in-after to be referred as ‘the plaintiff’) has laid challenge to the order passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal (for short ‘the trial Court’), on 10.04.2024 in CM No.83 of 2019 titled as ‘ Suresh Kumar Sharma versus Surender Kumar ’, whereby the application, as moved by him for seeking the appointment of the Local Commissioner, has been dismissed.
YAG DUTT 2024.06.14 13:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
CR No.2999 of 2024 -2-
referred as ‘defendant No.1’) and two more defendants and vide the order dated 21.06.2019 as passed by the trial Court therein, the parties had been directed to maintain status-quo qua the existing state of affairs over the suit property but defendant No.1 started raising construction in this property, in flagrant violation of the above-referred direction and therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file a petition under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC and then, he had moved the afore-mentioned application as the report of the Local Commissioner, in respect of the actual existing position of the construction at the spot, would have facilitated the proper and just decision of the abovesaid petition but the trial Court has wrongly dismissed the afore-referred application vide the impugned order and hence, the said order is not legally sustainable and deserves to be set-aside.
YAG DUTT 2024.06.14 13:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
CR No.2999 of 2024 -3-
May 16, 2024 Yag Dutt
(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether Reportable: No
YAG DUTT 2024.06.14 13:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
2 issues framed by the court
Was the trial court's dismissal of the application for appointment of a Local Commissioner legally sustainable?
Is a revision petition maintainable against an order refusing to appoint a Local Commissioner?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pritam Singh and another Versus Sunder Lal and othersRelied on¶5
Pritam Singh and another Versus Sunder Lal and others, 1990 PLJ 418
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Suresh Kumar Sharma
Surender Kumar
Meenakshi I. Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
