Civil Revision No. 7707 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7707 of 2011 Date of decision. 14.12.2011 Chander Kanta .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Chander Kanta, the plaintiff is in revision before me challenging the order dated 15.11.2011(Annexure P-4) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak, vide which her application for appointment of local commissioner has been dismissed. The petitioner Chander Kanta has claimed in the application filed for appointment of local commissioner that she is owner in possession of property measuring 1120 square yards . She claimed to have purchased the same vide sale deed dated 18.06.1992 and raised construction thereon. She has claimed that the said land has got fruit bearing and other trees, which are quite old. It is claimed to be commercial property which has electric connection in the same. Civil Revision No. 7707 of 2011 --2-- Defendants no.2 and 3 are said to have denied in their written statement that the plaintiff has raised construction of house by spending lacs of rupees. They have also denied the presence of fruit bearing and other trees in the suit property or the suit property being commercial property. The plaintiff, thus, applied for appointment of local commissioner to report the actual area of the property with boundaries, length and breadth as well as construction over the same with the age and value of the construction. She has also sought report from the local commissioner about the actual physical position of the property as also about installation of electric connection in the same. She also wanted a report about number of fruit bearing and other trees with their age, height and girth and lastly she has desired the local commissioner to report about the cost/price of the said property. The application was opposed by the defendants. They have claimed the application to be not maintainable and they asserted that local commission is sought to be appointed to collect evidence for the plaintiff, which cannot be allowed. On merits, all the averments of the plaintiff have been denied. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak dismissed the application vide order dated 15.11.2011 primarily for the reason that the application has been moved only to create evidence, which is not permissible. I have heard Mr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully. Civil Revision No. 7707 of 2011 --3-- Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is policy of the government to exclude the land over which there had been old construction. According to him, under that policy the government has excluded the properties of various other persons but has not excluded the property of the plaintiff. According to him, there is no reason for which the plaintiff-petitioner could be discriminated in this regard. He has submitted that local commissioner would be most suitable for submitting report in this regard and learned trial court was not justified in declining the prayer made by the petitioner in her application for appointment of local commissioner. Local commissioner would have been appointed if there would have been any dispute regarding the identity of the property. Question of demarcation of the property to find out encroachment could be referred to local commissioner for his report. In the case in hand, the plaintiff is to prove the date, month and year of her raising construction of the house, the date on which she obtained electric connection therein and also about the position of the trees standing in the same as also the location of the property vis-a-vis the main road to highlight its commercial potentiality. These facts are required to be proved by the plaintiff to establish his claim and for collecting this evidence, the plaintiff cannot be helped by appointing a local commissioner. There are many experts in the field and one of them could be hired to examine the said property and to make a report to the court and further make statement in support thereof. The plaintiff would have lot of other evidence to prove the fact as to when she had constructed the house and when she took electric connection for the Civil Revision No. 7707 of 2011 --4-- same. If she is entitled to any relief on the ground of discrimination she can lead this evidence and local commissioner is not required to be appointed for fetching this evidence for the plaintiff. For the aforesaid reasons, learned trial court has rightly declined the prayer of the plaintiff for appointment of local commissioner vide the impugned order. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed. 14.12.2011 ( Vijender Singh Malik ) dinesh Judge