C.R.No.2117 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.2117 of 2011 Date of Decision: 29.3.2011 Hardeep Singh ....Petitioner Versus Deena Nath and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH, J Defendant-petitioner has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the impugned order dated 10.2.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Samrala vide which the application filed by him for appointment of Local Commissioner has been dismissed. Plaintiffs-respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owner in possession along with other co- sharers over the land measuring 7 kanal 10 marlas comprised in khewat No.40, 97 Khatauni No.53, 119 Rectangle No.26 Killa No.2/2 (4-0), 3 (2-4), Rectangle No.24, Killa No.22/2 (1-6) as per jamabandi for the year 1998-99 situated at village Rurewal Hadbast No.31 Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana and that the petitioner-defendant along with proforma respondent Nos.1 to 18 except respondent No.17 are in possession of land comprised in Khasra No.119,118 & 117 Killa No.26//26 adjoining the suit land. Respondents-plaintiffs had also C.R.No.2117 of 2011 #2# sought the relief of permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and proforma respondents except proforma respondent No.17 from encroaching upon the suit land as also from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs-respondent Nos.1 to 3 over the suit land. Defendant-petitioner filed joint written statement along with proforma respondent No.6-Avinash Singh inter alia stating therein that khasra No.26//26 was kept reserved at the time of consolidation adjoining killa No.29, which was reserved for the purpose of grave yard and that the said khasra number could not be changed and Khasra No.119 was also in possession of the defendants-petitioners and respondent No.6. On the basis of the pleadings of parties, learned trial Court framed issues on 7.12.2005. Thereafter, plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 to 3 led and closed their evidence. During the leading of evidence of the defendant-petitioner, he moved an application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of a Local Commissioner to demarcate Khasra No.117,118,119 and Rect. No.26 Killa No.26 by pleading therein that there was a dispute regarding location of these khasra number for which a Local Commissioner is required to be appointed to demarcate and locate the exact position of these Khasra Numbers. It was further pleaded therein that without demarcation, the evidence could not be properly appreciated. Upon notice, reply to the application was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents by stating therein that the property C.R.No.2117 of 2011 #3# mentioned in the application is not the subject matter of the suit and that defendant-petitioner is not owner of the property mentioned in the application. After hearing both the sides, application has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide the impugned order, hence the present revision petition. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Court has illegally dismissed the application of the defendant-petitioner as a dispute is going on between the parties since long with regard to the exact location of Khasra Nos.11,7,118 & 119 and Rect. No.26//26 over which the petitioner and others are in possession and for proper adjudication of the case, appointment of local commissioner is necessary. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I find no merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned trial Court while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC has rightly held that the plaintiff-respondents have filed the suit for declaration to the effect that he along with other co-sharers is owner in possession over the land measuring 7 K, 10-M comprised in khewat No.40,97 Khatoni No.53,119, Rect. No.26, Killa No.2/2,3, Rect. No.24, Killa NO.22/2 as per jamabandi for the year 1998-99 and not regarding Khasra Nos.117,118, 119 and Rect. 26//26. I am further in agreement with the view taken by the learned trial Court that defendants have to prove their case independently by cogent and clinching evidence and the C.R.No.2117 of 2011 #4# court is not to collect evidence for the defendants. In this view of the matter, learned trial Court has rightly declined the prayer of the defendant-petitioner for appointment of a local commissioner and no fault can be found with the same. For the reasons stated above, no interference is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution by this Court. Dismissed. 29.3.2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) joshi JUDGE