IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.3969 of 2009 Date of Decision: 25.03.2010 **** Inderjit Singh . . . Petitioner VS. Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL **** Present: Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner ***** L.N. MITTAL J. (ORAL) Inderjit Singh decree-holder has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 05.06.2009 (Annexure P6) passed by the Executing Court i.e., the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur. Vide decree dated 06.12.1997 (Annexure P1), suit filed by the petitioner against the respondent-Municipal Committee was partly decreed to the extent that natural flow of water which is in existence, will not be changed by the defendant. The petitioner has filed application under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, alleging that the respondent/Judgement-Debtor has violated the terms of the CR No.3969 of 2009 decree by raising level of the road in front of the house of the neighbour and thereby the level of road in front of house of the petitioner has been lowered and the flow of water has been changed. During pendency of the aforesaid application, petitioner moved application dated 24.10.2008 (Annexure P4) for inspection of the spot by the Court to determine that the respondent/Judgement-Debtor has made factually incorrect averments in reply and affidavit etc. This application has been dismissed by the Executing Court vide impugned order dated 05.06.2009 (Annexure P6). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Additional affidavit of the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 12.10.2009 has today been filed in Court and the same is taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the dispute can be sorted out and settled once and for all if the Presiding Officer of the Executing Court inspects the spot. The contention cannot be accepted. The Judicial Officer cannot be made party or witness to the litigation between - 2- CR No.3969 of 2009 the parties. It is for the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective contentions. No doubt, if the Presiding Officer, in the facts of any particular case, deems it appropriate to inspect the spot, the Presiding Officer has ample power to do so. However, when the Presiding Officer has found that the spot inspection by him is not warranted in this case, the impugned order cannot be said to be illegal in any manner so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, the Executing Court has observed in the impugned order that it is for the decree-holder to lead convincing and cogent evidence to prove that there has been non- compliance with the decree by the respondent/Judgement- Debtor. Thus, petitioner is at liberty to lead evidence in support of his version. For the reasons accorded hereinabove, I find no merit in the instant revision petition which is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (L.N. MITTAL) JUDGE 25.03.2010 vishal shonkar - 3-