Civil Revision No. 6885 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6885 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 9th, 2011 Bharpur Singh .... Petitioner Versus Gurminder Singh and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present Mr. O.P.Goyal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. H.S.Gharoo, Advocate, for the petitioner. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. This is plaintiff's revision petition brought under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 5.8.2011, whereby learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), S.A.S. Nagar Mohali, has dismissed the application of the petitioner for appointment of Local Commissioner. The petitioner had brought a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his ownership and peaceful possession in respect of a house situated in the abadi of village Kumbra and further from interfering in the construction work of the plaintiff in any manner. While the plaintiff was leading his evidence, he had made an application for appointment of Local Commission for spot inspection Civil Revision No. 6885 of 2011 2 .. claiming that the defendants are threatening the plaintiff of not allowing him to raise construction on the common wall. He has claimed that he is facing hardship because of the wrongful acts of the defendants. The Local Commissioner is prayed to be appointed to ascertain the actual and factual position at the spot. A similar application had also been filed with the prayer of early hearing of the application for appointment of Local Commissioner. The application for appointment of Local Commissioner has been opposed claiming that the parties had reached a compromise under which half of the cost of construction of the wall by the defendants had to be paid by the plaintiff and he had failed to pay the same. It is claimed that the plaintiff has no legal right to raise construction on the common wall before he pays half of the cost of the said wall as per the compromise. Considering the rival pleas, in the light of the submissions made by learned counsel representing the parties, learned trial court dismissed the application for the reason that the prayer made in the application is beyond the purview of the relief sought by the plaintiff in the main case. I have heard Mr. O.P.Goyal, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H.S.Gharoo, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a draftsman could be engaged to visit the spot and to prepare the site plan and to make a report regarding the existing position on the spot and could be examined thereafter in the evidence, but the sanctity attached to Civil Revision No. 6885 of 2011 3 .. a report of a draftsman would not be same as is attached to the report of Local Commissioner appointed by the court. According to him, the amount of share of the plaintiff in the cost of construction of the common wall has not been paid so far by the plaintiff because the defendants did not produce the bills to prove the cost of construction of the common wall. He has cited before me Radhey Shyam Rastogi Vs. Ashish Kumar and Anr., 2008 (4) CCC 428 (SC), where an independent Engineer/Advocate was recommended to be appointed as Local Commission to come to a proper finding about the ground of eviction of the premises being in dilapidated and dangerous condition requiring demolition and reconstruction. Another case cited before me is Varala Ramachandra Reddy Vs. Mekala Yedi Reddy & Ors, 2010 (4) CCC 453 (AP), where it has been laid down that the court could appoint a Local Commission in suit for permanent injunction to survey and demarcate the land and to give report about the boundaries. The last one is cited as Piara Lal Vs. The Liquidator Cooperative Store, Kapurthala and Ors. 2004 (2) CCC 573 (P&H), where it is laid down that the court has power to appoint Local Commission for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute. Neither it is a case for demarcation of boundaries nor I find elucidation of any matter to be required by appointing a Local Commissioner in this case. Admittedly, there is a common wall for the houses of the parties and as per the compromise dated 16.3.1999, this wall was held to be a joint wall of the parties and right to use the said wall was given to the plaintiff on payment of half of the cost of the wall. From the year 1999, the plaintiff has not paid half of the cost of that wall. Even Civil Revision No. 6885 of 2011 4 .. if it is believed that the defendants did not give the bills for the cost of construction of the wall, learned trial court in this very suit could be requested to direct the defendants to put-forth the value of that wall. In the face of these facts, nothing is left to be examined by a Local Commission. Learned trial court has, therefore, been very right in observing that the prayer made in the application is beyond the purview of the relief sought by the plaintiff. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The revision petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE November 9th, 2011 som