Civil Revision No. 1458 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1458 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 09.07.2009 Brij Mohan Aggarwal ....Petitioner Versus Ramesh Chand ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: -Mr. Vivek Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) C.M. No. 6363-CII of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. C.R. No. 1458 of 2009 This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.10.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar, vide which the application moved by the petitioner for appointment of Local Commissioner has been rejected. The petitioner also prayed for recalling of an order earlier passed. The petitioner is a decree-holder. An order passed by the learned Executing Court was challenged by the petitioner by way of civil revision petition No. 2350 of 2002. The revision petition was allowed by this Court, and the impugned order was set aside. In pursuance thereto, the petitioner approached the learned Executing Court wherein he demanded amount of Rs.1849.05 from the Civil Revision No. 1458 of 2009 (O&M) -2- judgment-debtor. The learned Executing Court directed the counsel opposite to make payment of the amount outstanding. As regards the claim of mesne profit, the learned trial Court was pleased to frame the issues and fix the case for evidence. The petitioner sought recall of the order framing issues and permitting the petitioner to lead evidence, and also sought appointment of Local Commissioner. The learned trial Court has been pleased to dismiss the application for recall as well as for appointment of Local Commissioner by holding that it is for the petitioner to lead evidence and Court was not to collect evidence for him. It is pertinent to notice here, that the order refusing the appointment of Local Commissioner is not revisable in view of the law laid down by this Court in Pritam Singh Vs. Sudhir Lal 1990(1) P.L.R. 191; Niranjan Singh Vs. Satwinder Singh 2005(2) P.L.R. 689 and Hari Om Vs. Manish Kumar 2005(2) P.L.R. 690 . No grievance, therefore, can be raised for non-appointment of Local Commissioner. So far as the other claims are concerned, the learned Court below has passed an order, permitting the petitioner herein to lead evidence to prove the mesne profit payable to him. The order cannot be said to be passed against his interest or to his prejudice so as to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge July 09, 2009 R.S.