IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5274 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 1st September, 2011 Avinash and others … Petitioners Versus Mam Raj and others … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present revision petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order dated 12th August, 2011 (Annexure P-9), whereby the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurukshetra had appointed a Local Commissioner. Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has assailed the order of appointment of the Local Commissioner on the following two grounds: (a) That the Local Commissioner cannot be appointed to ascertain as to who is in possession. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon ‘Vijay Kumar Civil Revision No.5274 of 2011 (O&M) and others v. Ishri Devi and others’ 2009(2) Civil Court Cases 421 (P&H) and ‘Vinod Kumar v. Gram Panchayat of Village Kheri Naru and others’ 2008(1) Civil Court Cases 43 (P&H); (b) That the Local Commissioner can only be appointed after framing of the issues. In support of this contention, counsel has relied upon ‘Manzoor Ahmed and others v. Assad- Ullah and others’ 2008(1) Civil Court Cases 156 (J&K). I have considered the arguments raised and have also perused the judgments relied upon by Mr. Gupta. There is no doubt that the Local Commissioner cannot ascertain the possession. He has to perform ministerial acts for the aid of the Court. He is the one who has to gather the evidence and submit it to the Court for its appraisal. Even this fact is evident from the judgment rendered in Vijay Kumar’s case (supra) relied upon by counsel for the petitioners. The Court in para No.7 of that judgment has specifically stated that a finding of possession is invariably a judicial act to be undertaken by a Court and such a power cannot be abdicated to an Advocate Commissioner. However, the Court has held that the Advocate Commissioner is only appointed to assist the Court. Therefore, in view of the reasoning given in the judgment rendered in Vijay Kumar’s case (supra), the first contention of counsel for the petitioners is rejected. So far as the second submission made by the counsel is concerned, the same is also not tenable being fallacious. There is no bar or impediment for the Court to have evidence which will advance its journey for dispensation of justice. In the impugned order it 2 Civil Revision No.5274 of 2011 (O&M) has been specifically stated that there is a dispute regarding existence of passage between the plaintiffs and the defendants. Therefore, the Court held that appointment of a Local Commissioner is in the interest of justice to determine as to whether the passage is existing at the spot or not. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE September 1, 2011 rps 3