Dismissed¶20

Gurnam Singh v. Mithu Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Feb 2026CR/1878/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's stand that a Local Commissioner be appointed to identify the land cannot be entertained, because it was never the petitioner's stand before the Civil Court that the land was not identifiable.

Gurnam Singh Vs Mithu Singh — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the revision petition under Article 227 challenging dismissal of the application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of a Local Commissioner ought to be allowed on the contention that the land is not identifiable.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

¶15

Key takeaways

Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to deny that no such stand (that the land was not identifiable) was taken in the civil suit.ratio¶19
The application for appointment of a Local Commissioner appears to be nothing but a dilatory tactic, as vide order dated 13.02.2023 the petitioner was already directed to vacate and hand over possession of the plot measuring 8 Marla.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Alka Sarin, J.), CR-1878-2025 (O&M), decided 10.02.2026 — Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 04.10.2024 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fazilka dismissing the petitioner's application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of a Local Commissioner before the Executing Court. Background: petitioner's 2015 injunction suit was dismissed and the defendant's counterclaim decreed (judgment and decree dated 08.08.2018); on respondent No.1's application under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC, the petitioner was directed on 13.02.2023 (P1) to vacate and deliver possession of the plot measuring 8 Marla within 20 days. Held: the plea that the land is not identifiable and therefore a Local Commissioner ought to be appointed cannot be entertained, as that stand was never taken before the Civil Court and counsel conceded before this Court that no such stand was taken in the suit; the application was a dilatory tactic. The order dated 04.10.2024 had also noticed that the petitioner never denied the encroachment upon the plot measuring 8 Marla. Revision petition dismissed; pending applications disposed of.

¶1

125

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CR-1878-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 10.02.2026

¶4

GURNAM SINGH .... Petitioner VERSUS MITHU SINGH AND ORS .... Respondents

¶5

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

¶6

Present : Ms. Harmeet, Advocate for Mr. Aarish Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶7

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

¶8

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 04.10.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fazilka whereby an application filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of a Local Commissioner before the Executing Court was dismissed.

¶9

Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the petitioner herein had filed a civil suit bearing No.61 dated 17.08.2015 titled as ‘Gurnam Singh V/s Mithu Singh etc.’ for permanent injunction for restraining the respondents and others from interfering into his peaceful possession over the plot/house as fully described in the plaint therein. The defendants therein appeared and filed written statement-cum-counterclaim. In the counterclaim, injunction sought was for restraining the petitioner herein from causing forcible, illegal and unauthorized interference into their peaceful possession. Vide judgment and

¶10

AMAN JAIN 2026.02.11 09:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶11

CR-1878-2025 (O&M) -2-

¶12

decree dated 08.08.2018 the suit filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed and the counterclaim was decreed. A petition was filed by respondent No.1 herein under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC stating that despite the injunction being passed in his favour, the petitioner herein had failed to comply with the decree. Objections were filed by the petitioner herein and a stand taken was that he was in possession of the house for the last more than 24 years. The application under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC was allowed vide order dated 13.02.2023 (P1) and the petitioner herein was directed to vacate and deliver the possession of the plot in question within a period of 20 days. An application was filed by respondent No.1-decree holder for enforcement of the decree by way of attachment of movable and immovable property of the petitioner and also by detention in civil prison. The petitioner herein filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of a Local Commissioner to ascertain the actual and factual position of the alleged land measuring 8 Marla. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 04.10.2024. Hence, the present revision petition by the petitioner herein.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would contend that since the land is not identifiable hence the application for appointment of a Local Commissioner ought to have been allowed.

¶14

Heard.

¶15

In the present case the stand taken by the petitioner that a Local Commissioner be appointed to identify the land cannot be entertained inasmuch as it was never the stand taken by the petitioner before the Civil Court that the land was not identifiable. Infact, it has been noticed in the order

¶16

AMAN JAIN 2026.02.11 09:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶17

CR-1878-2025 (O&M) -3-

¶18

dated 04.10.2024 that the petitioner herein had never denied the encroachment

¶19

upon the plot measuring 8 Marla. Even before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to deny the fact that no such stand was taken in the civil suit that the land was not identifiable. The present application appears to be nothing but a dilatory tactic as vide order dated 13.02.2023 the petitioner was directed to vacate and hand over the possession of the plot measuring 8 Marla.

¶20

In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

¶21

(ALKA SARIN)

¶22

10.02.2026 (ALKA SARIN) Aman Jain JUDGE

¶23

NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶24

AMAN JAIN 2026.02.11 09:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

Gurnam Singh v. Mithu Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurnam Singh v. Mithu Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hardev Singh & Ors. Vs Girdhari Lal & Ors.

Ramesh Chander and Another Vs Shankar Lal Saini and Others

Tarugir and Others Vs Anoop Kumar and Others

Harbant Singh Vs the Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Jagjit Singh Vs Balbir Singh and Others

Beant Singh Vs Sukhwinder Singh and Ors.