IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 2743 of 2011 Date of decision: 27.4.2011 Suman Lata … Petitioner versus Gurdip Kaur … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr.Shiv Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit titled 'Suman Lata v. Gurdip Kaur'. She is aggrieved with order dated 18.3.2011 passed by the Civil Judge(Junior Division), Dasuya, by dint of which her application for appointment of Local Commissioner has been declined. The facts, in brief, are that in the plaint, plaintiff claims to have purchased the suit land/plot of 10 marlas vide sale-deed dated 15.5.1998 falling in Khasra No. 53/13/1/2/2. Her claim is that defendant has threatened to take forcible possession of the suit land. She has thus, sought injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in any manner in her peaceful possession over the suit land/plot. On the contrary, the stand of the defendant in the written statement is that the land falls in Khasra No. 53/8. Heard. The plaintiff in support of the afore-stated application has not placed on record sale-deeds from which boundaries of the properties so purchased by her could be depicted. The boundaries of the respective land/plot can be ascertained from the sale-deed to answer the controversy. The object of appointment of Local Commissioner is not to collect evidence for a party. It is not the aim of Order 26 rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure, to to necessitate a litigant to collect evidence. In back-drop of these facts, the C.R. No. 2743 of 2011 -2- application for appointment of Local Commissioner so filed by the petitioner has rightly been dismissed by the Court below. No intereference is called for. The revision petition is dismissed. April 27, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE