Yadwinder Singh Vs Kulwant Singh and Another

P1) passed b y Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib whereby the learned Exe c uting Court below has dismissed the application of the petitioner/ J udgment Debtor for appoint m ent of Local Commissioner, being agains t law and suffering patent illegality.

¶14

I have heard learned c o unsel for the petitioner and perused the case file in great detail.

¶15

The prayer of the petiti o ner is liable to be rejected in the first inst a nce as it is established positio n in law, that an order allowing or rejecting application of either of the pa r ties for appointment of Local Commission e r is not a revisable order. The p resent revision petition is not maintainabl e in view of judgment of this C o urt in “ Banarsi Dass v Sunita

¶16

Rani @ Sarita Rani and others”, Law Finder Doc Id # 827241, wherein it has been h eld that order appointing o r dismissing application for

¶17

SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

Page 2 of 3

¶19

appointmen t of Local Commission is not revisable. Even two Division Benches of this Court in “ Harvinder Kaur v Godha Ram”, 1979 PLJ 562 and “Pritam Singh v Sunder Lal”, 1990(2) PLR 191, have held that Revision Pet i tion is not maintainable against an order of the Court below dismissing o r allowing an application for appointment of Local Commission e r.

¶20

It is the consistent po s ition in law, that an order refusing to a ppoint Local Commissioner d o es not decide any issue nor adjudicate a ny rights of the parties for t he purpose of the suit and therefore, i s not revisable. Refusing t o appoint, or appointing, a Commission e r has nothing to do with the rights of the parties and it is purely the d iscretion of the Court. If the Court refuses to appoint, or appoints, a L ocal Commissioner, no right of t he parties is prejudiced. It has further bee n held that the instrumentalit y of Court cannot be used to collect evidence on behalf of either p arty. Thus, orders allowing appointmen t , or rejecting appointment, of Local Commissioner, are not amenable to revisional jurisdiction. 5. Moreover, in the prese n t case the learned Executing Court has n o ticed in the impugned order t h at the petitioner has filed the present ap p lication just to delay the e xecution and so that the respondent- d ecree holder may not get the fruits of decree passed as far back as in 2 016. Respondent-decree hold e r had filed a suit for specific performanc e against the petitioner whi c h was partly decreed vide

¶21

SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

Page 3 of 3

¶23

judgment a n d decree dated 21.01.2016 a n d for recovery of Rs.4 lakh + interest thereupon. Appeal filed by the petitioner against the said judgment a n d decree was also dismissed o n 04.05.2022. Subsequently, the respond e nt thereof had filed execution application dated 22.09.2022 (Annexure P 2); to which the petitioner h a d duly filed the objections; which were d ismissed by the Executing Cou r t vide order dated 04.08.2023 (Annexure P6). Thereafter, even third-part y objections dated 19.09.2023 (Annexure P 5 ) were filed in the matter whi c h were also dismissed by the Executing C o urt vide order dated 25.09.20 2 3 (Annexure P7). Thereafter, the petition e r filed present application da t ed 05.10.2023 (Annexure P8) for appoint m ent of Local Commissioner, which has been dismissed vide impugned o r der dated 04.12.2024 (Annexur e P1).