Civil Revision No. 3133 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3133 of 2009 Date of decision : March 03, 2010 Harpreet Singh ....Petitioner versus Pamela Sahi ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Anuj Raura, Advocate, for the petitioner Ms. Madhu P. Singh, Advocate, for the respondent L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Harpreet Singh defendant has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 30.3.2009, Annexure P/3, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, thereby partly allowing application of plaintiff-respondent for appointment of Local Commissioner. The plaintiff-respondent filed suit against defendant-petitioner for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from making any addition, alteration, demolition, reconstruction etc. in the suit property i.e. SCO No. 26, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh. Vide exparte order dated 24.8.2007, Local Commissioner was appointed to visit the spot after giving prior notice Civil Revision No. 3133 of 2009 -2- to both the parties and to report regarding existing position of the suit property. On 27.8.2007 report of the Local Commissioner was received. The defendant also put in appearance through counsel. The case was adjourned to 11.9.2007 and till then the defendant was restrained from getting suit property repaired further. The said stay order was extended from time to time. Ultimately vide order dated 8.3.2008, plaintiff's application for temporary injunction was disposed of by restraining the defendant from renovating or demolishing the disputed property except in accordance with law. However, the defendant was given liberty to block the hole in the wall of bath room. In the meantime, the plaintiff on 29.9.2007 moved application for appointment of another Local Commissioner to assess damage caused to the suit property and to report the latest renovation/demolition carried out by the defendant after passing of stay order by the court. Learned trial court vide impugned order Annexure P/3 declined the prayer of the plaintiff for appointment of Local Commissioner to assess damage caused to the suit property but appointed Local Commissioner to visit the spot to report about latest existing position of the suit property as it is also necessary to adjudicate upon the controversy as to whether the defendant has complied with the stay order or not. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been filed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner very vehemently and emphatically contended that the suit was not even fixed before the trial Civil Revision No. 3133 of 2009 -3- court for 30.3.2009 when the impugned order was passed and counsel for the defendant-petitioner was also not present in the trial court and was incorrectly recorded to be present. Perusal of the lower court file belies this contention. The case was fixed for 29.3.2009 which being Sunday was a holiday and therefore, as per High Court Rules and Orders, the case was taken up on the next working day i.e. 30.3.2009. Consequently, it cannot be said that the case was not fixed for that date. The record of the trial court also reveals that counsel for the parties were present when the impugned order was passed. On merits, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Local Commissioner cannot be appointed to gather the evidence for the plaintiff. The contention cannot be accepted. Admittedly, there is stay order against the defendant from carrying out any renovation or demolition. The allegation of the plaintiff is that in spite of stay order, the defendant has carried out renovation/alteration in the suit property. To determine the same, the plaintiff has no remedy except to seek appointment of Local Commissioner because the plaintiff herself cannot inspect the suit property being in possession of the defendant and therefore, Local Commissioner has been rightly appointed to determine the latest existing condition of the suit property. It is not explained as to what prejudice or harm would be suffered by the defendant-petitioner if the Local Commissioner visits the spot and reports about the latest existing condition of the suit property. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition. The impugned order of the trial court does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Civil Revision No. 3133 of 2009 -4- Records of the trial court be sent back at once. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 29.3.2010. ( L.N. Mittal ) March 03, 2010 Judge 'tiwana'