Civil Revision No. 5178 of 2009 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 21549-CII of 2009 & Civil Revision No.5178 of 2009 Date of decision. 23.09.2009 1. Amarjit Singh, 2. Sukhwinder Singh, sons of Veer Singh s/o Jawahar Singh, rs/o village Nabipur, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala. ....... Petitioners Versus 1. Jagir Singh s/o Ishar Singh, 2. Harbans Singh, 3. Jarnail Singh s/o Jagir Singh, 4. Balwant Singh s/o Joginder Singh, 5. Lakha Singh s/o Balwant Singh, all rs/o village Nabipur, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala, and 6. Banta s/o Jawahar Singh, r/o village Pandori Jagir Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala. ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Ramesh Sharma,Advocate for the petitioners. **** Sham Sunder, J. CM No.21549-CII of 2009 CM is allowed as prayed for. Civil Revision No. 5178 of 2009 --2-- Civil Revision No.5178 of 2009 This revision-petition is directed against the order dated 23.07.2009, rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sultanpur, vide which it dismissed the application for appointment of Local Commissioner for re-demarcation. 2. The Counsel for the revision-petitioners submitted that a Local Commissioner was appointed to demarcate the property, who submitted his report. He further submitted that the objections were filed to the report of the Local Commissioner, by both the parties. He further submitted that the Court below, instead of deciding the objections, kept the same pending, to be decided at the time of final decision of the case. He further submitted that, in case, the objections to the report of the Local Commissioner, are not decided, before the final decision of the case, prejudice would be caused to the revision-petitioners, as if, ultimately, the Court below set aside that report, no remedy will be left with the plaintiffs/revision- petitioners. Civil Revision No. 5178 of 2009 --3-- 3. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the revision- petitioners, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. One Local Commissioner was appointed, in the case. Objections to his report have already been submitted by the parties to the suit. The Local Commissioner, namely Sukhnandan Singh, Circle Kanungo, was examined as PW-1 and his evidence was completed way back on 10.01.2008, as is evident from the order impugned. Another application was filed by the plaintiffs/revision-petitioners, for appointment of another Local Commissioner, which was dismissed vide order dated 23.04.2008 by the trial Court. The trial Court was right in coming to the conclusion, that since one Local Commissioner was appointed, who submitted his report, and the objections were yet to be decided against that report, no fresh Local Commissioner could be appointed, for the purpose of re-demarcation. The Court below was also right, in holding, that the main suit was fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments and the application, on which the impugned order was passed, had been moved by the plaintiffs/ revision- petitioners, with a malafide intention. The Court below cannot Civil Revision No. 5178 of 2009 --4-- be directed to decide the objections, against the report of the Local Commissioner, in the first instance, and then decide the suit. The order impugned, does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The order impugned is liable to be upheld. 4. For the reasons recorded above, the revision- petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. ( Sham Sunder ) Judge September 23, 2009 dinesh