C.R.No.5203 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.5203 of 2009 Date of Decision : 11.09.2009 Sukh Ram and others ...Petitioners Versus Tej Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Kul Bhushan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 19.8.2009, whereby the applications for appointment of a Local Commissioner to demarcate the property in dispute and for permission to lead additional evidence, were declined. In respect of application for appointment of Local Commissioner, it was found that the Local Commissioner was appointed vide order dated 11.3.2003. Such Local Commissioner has given his report. In view of the said report, the learned trial Court dismissed the application. It has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in Balbir Dewan Cold Storage and General Mills Vs. Naveen Chander 1989 (1) PLR 677 that challenging an order appointing or refusing of Local Commissioner is not maintainable. Therefore, the challenge to the order declining the appointment of Local Commissioner cannot be the subject matter to challenge in the present petition. While considering the application for additional evidence, it C.R.No.5203 of 2009 2 was found that it is not the case of the petitioners that the documents sought to be produced were not in the knowledge of the plaintiffs, when they were leading their evidence. Thus, the learned trial Court concluded that the plaintiffs are not entitled to lead additional evidence. However, the public documents like jamabandi and aks shajra were permitted to be produced in evidence, in rebuttal. As per the petitioners only site plan is required to be produced. It was open to the petitioners to produce the site plan, when the petitioners were leading their evidence in affirmative. The application for additional evidence was maintainable only if the petitioners satisfy the condition that the evidence, which is sought to be produced could not be produced in spite of the diligence, when they were leading evidence in affirmative. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court, which may warrant interference by this Court in the present revision petition. Dismissed. 11.09.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE