Civil Revision No. 5653 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5653 of 2011 Date of decision. 16.09.2011 Dharam Pal .... Petitioner Versus Rahul and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is a revision petition brought under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 17.08.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rewari, vide which the application (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner for appointment of building expert was dismissed. In a suit for possession by way of partition brought by the respondents Rahul and others, the petitioner-defendant filed an application for appointment of building expert to submit his report about the age of the building. It is claimed that the opinion of the expert about the age of the building is necessary for proper adjudication of the matter in dispute. The petitioner claimed himself as ready to pay the fee of the building expert. Civil Revision No. 5653 of 2011 --2-- The application was opposed by the respondent claiming inter-alia that if the defendants want to lead evidence regarding the age of the building, they can produce building expert in their evidence. The application is also claimed to have been filed just to delay the decision of the case. Vide order dated 17.08.2011, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rewari was of the view that the defendants, who are leading their evidence were well within their rights to appoint the expert on their behalf, who can give evidence in the court and that no such appointment of the building expert could be asked from the court. I have heard Mr. Kulbhushan Sharma, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the revision-petitioner has submitted that the evidence of the building expert appointed by the court would have more value than the building expert engaged by the petitioner. According to him, the report of such expert would be carrying more value and would decide the controversy between the parties. The prayer made in the application in fact is asking the court to collect evidence for the defendant. It cannot be done under law. The court cannot collect evidence for any party. The building expert, like handwriting and finger print expert has to be appointed by the party itself to inspect the building who could use his expertise in giving answers to the questions referred to him. No help in this regard could be extended to the parties by the court. Civil Revision No. 5653 of 2011 --3-- In these circumstances, I find no fault with the order of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rewari and consequently, find no ground to interfere with the same. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 16.09.2011 dinesh