Prem Chand Vs Satyapal and Others

By w ay of present revision petitio n filed under Article 227 of th e Constitution of India, challenge has been laid to an order dated 06.01.202 0 passed by the C ourt of learned Civil Judge ( Junior Division) Mohindergar h whereby, an application preferred at the inst a nce of petitioner for seekin g appointment of L ocal Commissioner stands dis m issed.

¶13

Briefly stating, the petitioner-plainti f f filed a suit for declaration an d permanent injunction against the respondents a ssailing the validity of partitio n proceedings. P u rsuant to the framing of issue s , the petitioner-plaintiff move d an application i n voking Order 26 Rule 9 CPC w ith a prayer for appointment o f Local Commissi o ner. The prayer made therein w as opposed at the instance o f respondents. The learned trial Court vide order dated 06.01.2020 declined th e prayer made by the petitioner-plaintiff for appointment of Local Commissioner . Impugning the a foresaid order dated 06.01.20 2 0, the present revision petitio n has been filed.

¶14

I ha v e heard learned counsel for t h e parties and gone through th e

¶15

paper-book.

¶16

The prayer for appointment of a L ocal Commissioner has bee n made by the p e titioner-plaintiff on the basis o f averments contained in his TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.02.24 18:40 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶17

CR-1067-2020 (O&M)

¶18

-2-

¶19

application dated 19.03.2019. Para No.2 of the same being relevant is reproduced hereunder:-

¶20

“That the Truck Union Mahendergarh and other co-sharer have taken in possession in their respective share in the Land in dispute but in the partition dated 31.01.1995 of the deponent the other land have been allotted to the owners as per partition. But on the post the owners are in possession of other land which prior to the partition. Even other wise the land is dispute was Gair Mumkin Land. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade had not powers to partition the land. Petition of the land was done mutually for last many years and as per the mutual partition the co-sharers were coming in possession of their respective shares and after filling the suit some of the co-sharers have raised construction on land in dispute and land is dispute is very valuable which is situated at Tula Ram Chowk, Dadri Mahendergarh Road. Therefore is necessary and equitable to get demarcate/Paimaish the land in dispute from Revenue Officer and called the spot report alongwith photographs. So that the real situation and spot report can come before Ld. Court and case can be decided on merit and the applicant can get natural justice.”

¶21

A perusal of the above shows that there is no averment made in the entire application with respect to the fact that any of the co-sharers is in possession of the land in excess of their shareholdings. In such circumstances, the prayer made for demarcation of the land in dispute is wholly uncalled for. Furthermore, as already expressed by the learned trial Court, there is no dispute regarding identification or measurement of the property in dispute and therefore, appointment of a Local Commissioner is not required.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid, there being no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned trial Court and finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed.

¶23