C.R. No. 6137 of 2011 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 6137 of 2011 Date of Decision: October 4, 2011 Chuni Lal ...................................................... Petitioner Versus Punjab State and others ........................ Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Sudhir Paruthi, Advocate for the petitioner. ... RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) This revision is against the order dated 27.8.2011 passed on the application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of a Local Commissioner. The plaintiff-applicant filed a civil suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering into the peaceful possession and from encroaching upon any part of the portion of the house exclusively owned by the plaintiff. The defendants in the suit C.R. No. 6137 of 2011 [ 2 ] are Department of Home through State of Punjab, Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar. Som Nath, defendant No.4, suffered a statement that they will not interfere into the possession of the plaintiff nor encroached upon the same till the filing of written statement. However, grievance of the plaintiff is that after admitting that plaintiff was in possession of the property when the defendants filed the written statement, they claim to be in possession of the property in question. The plaintiff sought appointment of Local Commissioner. This application has been dismissed on the ground that the factum of possession over the property in dispute cannot be assessed by the report of a Local Commissioner. This fact has to be proved by the plaintiff by leading evidence. A quardinate Bench of this Court in Hari Om v. Minish Kumar (2005-2) The Punjab Law Reporter 690 has held that the power under Section 226 of the Constitution of India is not to be exercised as a revisional power under Section 115 of CPC while appointment of Local Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC. In Vinod Kumar v. Gram Panchayat of village Kheri Naru & Others 2008(1) Civil Court Cases 43 (P&H) it is held that the question of possession cannot be ascertained by the appointment of a Local Commissioner. It if for the parties to lead necessary evidence to establish their possession. The object to appoint C.R. No. 6137 of 2011 [ 3 ] Local Commissioner is not to procure evidence for any particular party. The revision is dismissed. 4.10.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE