C.R. No. 1380 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 1380 of 2010 Date of Decision: 09.11.2010 Rakesh and others .... Petitioners Versus Sarabjeet @ Bablee and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. Deepak, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for respondent No. 1 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Plaintiffs have invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 22.9.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Faridabad whereby an application moved by the plaintiffs under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of Local Commissioner was rejected. The brief facts of the present case are that plaintiffs have filed suit for possession against defendant No. 1 claiming therein that they are the owners of the suit property. The main question involved before the trial Court is as to whether plaintiffs are the owners or defendant is the owner. Plaintiffs have moved an application before the learned trial Court under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC seeking C.R. No. 1380 of 2010 2 appointment of the Local Commissioner to find out as to whether Electricity Connection No. ZZ022/0452 is installed in the disputed property or not. Learned trial Court has rejected the application having observed that provision of Order 26 Rule 9 CPC can not be invoked for the purpose of collecting the evidence. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In a suit where question of title is involved and identification of the property is not in dispute then Local Commissioner ordinarily shall not be issued to collect the evidence in favour of one of the party. Petition is devoid of merit, hence is dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) 09.11.2010 JUDGE reena