Civil Revision No. 5484 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5484 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : September 08, 2011 Rashid Ahmed ....Petitioner versus Vakil Ahmed ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) CM No. 21856.CII of 2011 Allowed as prayed for. Civil Revision No. 5484 of 2011 Rashid Ahmed has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 29.7.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon, thereby dismissing application Annexure P/3 moved by the defendant- petitioner for appointment of Local Commissioner. Civil Revision No. 5484 of 2011 (O&M) -2- The defendant alleged in the application that the plaintiff in the suit claimed himself to be in exclusive possession but while appearing in the witness box, the plaintiff stated in cross-examination that both plaintiff and defendant are residing in the suit property whereas in fact the defendant is in exclusive possession of the suit property and to solve this controversy, appointment of Local Commissioner is necessary. Learned trial court vide impugned order dated 29.7.2011 dismissed the aforesaid application moved by defendant. Feeling dissatisfied, the defendant has filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the averments made in the application Annexure P/3 as noticed hereinbefore. However, it is well settled that power of the court to determine as to which party is in possession of the suit property cannot be delegated to Local Commissioner. Local Commissioner cannot be appointed to determine as to whether defendant-petitioner is in exclusive possession of the suit property or whether both the parties are in possession thereof. The trial court has rightly dismissed the application for appointment of Local Commissioner for this purpose. There is no infirmity much less perversity or illegality in the impugned order so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision Civil Revision No. 5484 of 2011 (O&M) -3- petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L.N. Mittal ) September 08, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'