Civil Revision No. 6090 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6090 of 2011 Date of decision. 03.10.2011 Parshan Singh and others .... Petitioners Versus Dilbag Singh and another ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Hitesh Kaplish, Advocate for the petitioners. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. The defendants have brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 23.08.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phagwara whereby the application filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of local commission has been allowed. The prayer for appointment of local commission was made by the plaintiffs-respondents in a case where they have sought the relief of possession by removal of malba of the construction raised by the defendants forcibly and illegally on a piece of land measuring 9 marlas, a part of land measuring 59 kanals 12 marlas, situated in the area of village Garbi Phagwara, Tehsil Phagwara, District Kapurthala. Civil Revision No. 6090 of 2011 --2-- On the other hand, the defendants have taken the stand that the plaintiffs have encroached upon their land to the extent of 11 marlas out of land comprised in khasra no.97/1. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court has allowed the application for appointment of local commission and has appointed Halqa Kanungo, Phagwara as local commission with a direction to conduct the demarcation/measurement of khasra no.1419 and 97/1 in accordance with the instructions of Financial Commissioner and to submit a report in this regard. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the defendants have brought this revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the demarcation report was already there with the plaintiff and there was no need to get local commission appointed. It is not evident to me if the earlier local commission carried out measurement in presence of the parties seeking measurement here as also the party opposing it. If that measurement/demarcation had not been carried out in the presence of any one of the parties, the same may not have any evidentiary value for decision of the controversy between the parties to this suit. Since the dispute between the parties is regarding encroachment, the boundaries of the properties of the parties have to be fixed to find out which of the parties is in unauthorized occupation of a portion of the property of other party and to what extent. Such type of disputes can be resolved only by demarcation of the property at Civil Revision No. 6090 of 2011 --3-- the spot for which the appointment of local commission is the only method of getting at the truth. The order was, therefore, required from the court under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of local commission. Consequently, I do not find any illegality committed by learned trial court in accepting the application of the plaintiffs and appointing Halqa Kanungo, Phagwara as local commission in this case. The revision petition, therefore, has no merit and is dismissed as such. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 03.10.2011 dinesh