IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 4934 of 2010 Date of decision:- 27.9.2010 Ram Avtar Singh ......petitioner vs. Udmi Ram and others ......respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the respondents HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by learned trial Court on 30.7.2010 (Annexure P-1) whereby an application filed by the petitioner for cross-examination of Sh. Hawa Singh Bhoria, Naib Tehsildar, Local Commissioner as Court witness was declined. It has also been pointed out that Objections raised on the report of Local Commissioner was also dismissed and therefore, the Local Commissioner cannot be permitted to be cross-examined. The reasoning given by the trial Court seems counter to the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Balbir Dewan Cold Storage and General Mills v. Naveen Chander, 1989 (1) PLR 677. It has been held herein that report of the Local Commissioner is per se admissible in evidence and the provisions of Order 26, Rule 9 Code of Civil Procedure, do not contemplate filing of the objections against the report of the Local Commissioner. It has been held to the following effect: - “Thus, from the provisions of Order 6 Rule 10, it is quite evident that there is no provision for inviting any objection to the report of the Local commissioner appointed under Rule 9 thereof. In case, any such objecitons are filed by either of the parties to draw the attention of the Court as to the inherent defects therein, the Court may consider the same and if for any reasons dissatisfied with the proceedings of the Commissioner, may direct such further inquiry to be made as it shall think fit but neither of the parties is entitled to claim any issue with respect to the report. The only provisions under sub Rule 2 of Rule 10 of Order 26 of the Code is to examine the Commissioners personally in open Court either by the Court itself or by the Court itself or by the parties with the permission of the Court. The objection, if filed by the parties, shall be considered after the cross-examination, if any, of the Local Commissioner by the Court under Rule 10 of Order 26 of the Code and that too along with the other evidence at the time of final hearing.” In view of the said fact, the order passed by learned trial Court is patently illegal and cannot be sustained in law. Consequently, the order passed by learned trial Court is set aside. Revision stands allowed. It shall be open to the petitioner to examine the Local Commissioner in accordance with law. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 27.9.2010 preeti