Civil Revision No. 6548 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6548 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision. 31.10.2011 Chander Kala .... Petitioner Versus Baljit and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Sushil Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. CM No.25726-CII of 2011 This is an application for permission to place on record Annexures P-1 to P-4 and for exemption from filing certified copies thereof. Miscellaneous application is allowed. Annexures P-1 to P-4 are taken on record and the petitioner is exempted from filing certified copies thereof. CR No.6548 of 2011 Chander Kala, plaintiff has brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 14.09.2011 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, whereby the application of the defendants for appointment of local commission has been allowed. Civil Revision No. 6548 of 2011 --2-- The plaintiff-petitioner has claimed in her suit that she is owner in possession of the suit property. She has sought the relief of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in her peaceful possession. She has claimed the suit property to have been located in khasra no.8005. The defendants, however, claimed the suit property to be a part of Khasra No.8002, 8003 and 8004. Claiming that in the garb of the present suit, the plaintiff wants to encroach upon the land of the defendants, they had prayed for appointment of local commission to locate the suit property and to report as to whether it is located in khasra No.8005 or in khasra no.8002, 8003 and 8004. The application was opposed by the plaintiff. She had claimed that she has nothing to do with khasra no.8002, 8003 and 8004. It is further added that the plaintiff has derived title to the suit property vide a sale deed, which is placed on the file and the same mentions the suit property to be located in khasra no.8005. Claiming that there was no need to appoint local commission, the application was prayed to be dismissed. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court has allowed the application, vide the impugned order and appointed Niab Tehsildar, Karnal as local commission with the direction to visit the spot after issuing due notice to the parties and to submit a report in this regard. Civil Revision No. 6548 of 2011 --3-- Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has brought this revision petition. I have heard Shri Sushil Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioner agrees to the fact that the suit requires investigation at the spot for its decision. According to him, only revenue official can locate the suit land at the spot and report as to whether it is a part of khasra nos. 8005 or is a portion of khasra no.8002 to 8004. His only grievance is that the defendants were not leading their evidence at present and they could have made this application at their turn for evidence. In my opinion an application of this nature could be made at any stage of the suit. When the question is as to whether a given portion of land is a part of khasra no.8005 or khasra no.8002 to 8004, the only way of deciding the controversy is by calling a report from a revenue official, appointed as local commission in this regard. In these circumstances, I find no merit in this revision petition and dismiss the same. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 31.10.2011 dinesh