C.R. No.6599 of 2006 {1} HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.6599 of 2006 Date of decision : 11.12.2006. Padamjit Singh ........Petitioner versus Mrs.Mary Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. Present : Mr.Sarwan Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr.A.S.Parmar, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * ORDER HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 14.11.2006 passed by the learned trial Court, whereby the attesting witnesses of the Will were permitted to be examined by appointing a Senior Advocate of this Court as Local Commissioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in terms of the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a judgment reported as 'AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT CASES-3353, Salem Advocate Bar Association Tamil Nadu versus Union of India', the attesting witnesses of the Will should have been examined in the Court itself. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held therein that it is not necessary to lay down hard and fast rules controlling the discretion of the Court to appoint local commissioner to cross-examine the witnesses. Therefore, I do not find that any binding law is laid down by the Hon'ble C.R. No.6599 of 2006 {2} Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid judgment. The witness is a former Chief Justice of the High Court. The learned trial Court has exercised discretion in appointing a Local Commissioner properly. I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed in limine. Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges. (HEMANT GUPTA) December11, 2006 JUDGE *mohinder