CIVIL REVISION NO.6131 OF 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL REVISION NO.6131 OF 2010 DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 21, 2010 Virsa Singh .... Petitioner Versus Balvir Singh and Others .... Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. T. P. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Malkit Singh, Advocate for respondents. * * * * L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Virsa Singh has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 16.08.2010 Annexure P-6 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala, thereby dismissing application Annexure P-3 moved by plaintiff-petitioner for appointment of Local Commissioner to report about factual position existing at the spot. Petitioner has filed suit vide plaint Annexure P-1 regarding property described by boundaries in the head note of the plaint and depicted by letters ABCD in rough site plan attached with the plaint. The plaintiff's case is that he is in possession of the aforesaid suit property and he has also constructed pacca room, a cattle shed and a pacca manger in it. Defendants in their written statement (Annexure P-2) have denied the aforesaid constructions. In view thereof, the plaintiff moved application Annexure P-3 for appointment of Local Commissioner to report about the aforesaid construction if any existing in the suit property. Defendants resisted the said application by filing reply CIVIL REVISION NO.6131 OF 2010 -2- Annexure P-4. Learned Trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-6 dismissed the aforesaid application moved by plaintiff-petitioner for appointment of Local Commissioner observing inter alia that the Court cannot help the plaintiff in collecting evidences and the plaintiff has to stand on his own legs to prove his case and he is at liberty to engage Architect to prepare site plan of the suit property to depict the construction existing therein. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that existence of construction in the suit property as pleaded by the plaintiff has been denied by the defendants and, therefore, it is essential that Local Commissioner be appointed to report about the construction, if any, existing in the suit property. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents contended that Court cannot collect evidence for the plaintiff and the trial court has rightly given liberty to the plaintiff to engage some Architect to depict the construction, if any, existing in the suit property and there is no necessity of appointing Local Commissioner. Learned counsel for the respondents also contended that suit property is part of Khsara number owned by Gram Panchayat but plaintiff has intentionally not mentioned Khasra number nor impleaded Gram Panchayat as party. I have carefully considered aforesaid contentions. So far as the contention that the suit property is comprised of Khasra number is concerned, the same has to be adjudicated upon by the trial court after the parties lead their evidence. The plaintiff has sufficiently and properly described the suit property so as to identify the same at the spot, because the property has been CIVIL REVISION NO.6131 OF 2010 -3- described by boundaries and has also been depicted in the site plan annexed with the plaint. Insofar as question of Gram Panchayat being necessary party to the suit is concerned, the said contention is also yet to be adjudicated upon by the trial court and the same is not relevant for the purpose of disposal of the instant revision petition concerning appointment of Local Commissioner. As regards observation of the trial court that court cannot collect evidence for the plaintiff and that the plaintiff may engage the service of an Architect, as also argued by the counsel for the respondents, this approach of the trial court is patently illegal and perverse. When the plaintiff has alleged existence of construction in the suit property and the defendants have denied the same, it is always better to appoint Local Commissioner to ascertain the necessary state of affirs at the spot so as to have first hand information. If an Architect is engated by the plaintiff, his report and testimony would be open to attack at the instance of respondents on the ground that the Architect had been paid for by the plaintiff and has, therefore, reported and deposed in his favour. On the other hand, Local Commissioner shall be impartial person to report about the construction, if any, existing in the suit property. Keeping in view the pleadings of the parties and all other circumstances, in my considered opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, it is imparative to appoint Local Commissioner as sought for by the plaintiff petitioner. Trial Court has illegaly refused to exercise its jurisdiction in this regard. Impugned order of the trial court, therefore, warrants intereference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Before concluding, I may make it clear that the Local Commissioner shall not report about either party being in possession of the property, but shall only report about the construction, if any, existing in the suit property. CIVIL REVISION NO.6131 OF 2010 -4- For the reasons aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and impugned order Annexure P-6 passed by the trial court is set aside. Application Annexure P-3 moved by the plaintiff-petitioner is allowed. The trial Court is directed to appoint appropriate Advocate as Local Commissioner to report about the existence of construction, if any, in the suit property. Fee of the Local Commissioner shall presently be paid by the plaintiff-petitioner. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 21.12.2010 'raj'