IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4972 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: October 21, 2011. M/s Bansal Forge and Fabrication. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Nikita Malhotra and another. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the respondents. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 27.07.2011, Annexure P3 passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Faridabad vide which application filed by respondent-plaintiff for appointment of local commission was accepted. CR No.4972 of 2011 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, respondents-plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction restraining present petitioner-defendant from causing nuisance in any manner to the person and property of the respondents-plaintiffs. Plea was taken that present petitioner-defendant has installed hammers in his premises causing nuisance and vibrations. Petitioner-defendant is tenant on the part of the property in dispute under respondents-plaintiffs and both the parties running their respective businesses. An application was filed by respondents- plaintiffs for appointment of local commission to report about the existing state of affairs as to whether any cracks are there in the wall as alleged by respondents-plaintiffs due to vibration of hammer. Application was opposed by present petitioner-defendant. However, learned trial Court appointed Shri J.S.Bainsla, Advocate as local commission with direction to visit the spot and report about the existing state of affairs of the property in dispute. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- defendant that the suit is at the initial stage and the local commission cannot be appointed to collect evidence for the parties. It is further contended that moreover, a lawyer cannot be said to be an expert to give opinion regarding cracks in the wall of the building and that rather some Technical Structure Engineer/Architect should have been appointed as a local commission. 2 CR No.4972 of 2011 On the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner- defendant that, some Technical Structure Engineer/Architect was sought to be appointed as local commission to visit the spot and to inspect the site and to give its report about the fact that as to whether any cracks are there in the wall due to working of hammer in the premises in occupation by petitioner and the trial Court has appointed an Advocate for this purpose, notice of motion was issued by this Court and operation of impugned order was stayed vide order dated 19.08.2011. It has been contended by learned counsel for the respondents- plaintiffs that respondents-plaintiffs are having no objection if the impugned order passed by the trial Court is modified to the extent that some Technical Structure Engineer/Architect is ordered to be appointed as local commission. Hence, in view of these facts, the present revision petition is partly accepted and the impugned order passed by learned trial Court is modified to the extent that learned trial Court is directed to appoint some Technical Structure Engineer/Architect as a local commission for the purpose instead of a lawyer. Disposed of accordingly. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) October 21, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 3