Civil Revision No. 2937 of 2010 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2937 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 5.5.2010 Gurdip Singh ...Petitioner vs Darshan Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. I. S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL, J. Challenge in the present petition is to order dated 24.2.2010, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridkot, whereby application filed by the petitioner for appointment of Local Commissioner was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents/ defendant nos. 1 to 3 from dispossessing the petitioner. The plea of the defendants/respondents is that they have not encroached upon the the land and nor they have raised any wall in the disputed land. Learned counsel 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 Local Commissioner cannot 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 at the site, which would have made clear 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 contentions 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 Civil Revision No. 2937 of 2010 (2) 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 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. 5.5.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge