Civil Revision No. 466 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 466 of 2009 (O&M) Darbara Singh ...Petitioner vs Karam Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Lalit Pathak, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL, J. Challenge in the present petition is to order dated 20.10.2008, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nabha, whereby application filed by the petitioner for appointment of Local Commissioner was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that appointment of Local Commissioner was required for just and proper decision of the issue in dispute as he would have reported the status at the site, which the other party was disputing. After considering the contention raised by both the parties, learned trial Court rejected the application by observing that no Local Commissioner can be appointed to collect evidence. He further submitted that appointment of Local Commissioner would be material for the purpose of decision of the controversy as he would have given a detailed report of the factual position regarding the electric motor and that as to whether the stand taken by the petitioner or the respondents was correct. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the contention raised. A Division Bench of this Court in Pritam Singh and another vs Sunder Lal and others 1990 (2) Punjab Law Reporter 191 has categorically held that order refusing to appoint a Local Commissioner does not decide any issue nor adjudicate rights of the parties for the purpose of the suit and no revision against that was held to be maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to cite any judgment taking a view contrary to what has been taken by the Division Bench of this Court. A Single Bench of this court in Hari Om vs Manish Civil Revision No. 466 of 2009 (2) Kumar, 2005(2) HRR 246 also dismissed revision petition filed by the petitioner therein challenging the order refusing to appoint Local Commissioner. The same view was followed in Civil Revision No. 4294 of 2007 Ramesh Kumar Pashan vs Sumita Bedi and another decided on 28.8.2007. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. 28.1.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge