Civil Revision No.5721 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5721 of 2011 Date of Decision:20.09.2011 Mam Chand ......Petitioner Versus Gram Panchayat Village Rundhi and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Mahendra Singh Tewatia, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The contour of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record is that, Mam Chand son of Jorawar-petitioner- plaintiff(for brevity “the plaintiff”) filed the suit for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the Gram Panchayat Village Rundhi, District Forest Officer, Deputy Commissioner, Palwal and Wild Life Inspector, Palwal-respondent- defendants(for short “the defendants”) from changing the purpose and nature of the land, reserved for Charand(grazing ground), in any manner. The defendants contested the suit of the plaintiff and prayed for its dismissal. 2. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff moved an application (Annexure P-1) for appointment of a Local Commissioner, to give his report with regard to the animals and numbers & thickness of the trees and also to take photographs of the site. The defendants refuted the claim of the plaintiff and filed the reply. 3. The trial Court dismissed the application(Annexure P-1) of the plaintiff, by means of impugned order dated 23.08.2011(Annexure P-2). Civil Revision No.5721 of 2011 2 4. Aggrieved by the impugned decision(Annexure P-2) of the trial Court, the petitioner-plaintiff preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record with his valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context. 6. As is evident from the record that Gram Panchayat-defendant No.1 is the owner and in possession of the property in dispute. The plaintiff has filed the suit for a decree of permanent injunction restraining it(Gram Panchayat) from cutting the trees and destroying the wild life. The existence of any wild life/trees over the suit property was stoutly denied by the defendants. Now, the plaintiff has to prove his pleaded case and he cannot legally be permitted to prove his case by appointing a Local Commissioner, to count the numbers & thickness of the trees and plants and to take the photographs of the site. 7. Meaning thereby, the trial court has recorded the cogent grounds and rightly dismissed the application of the plaintiff by way of impugned order. Such order, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned order is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such. September 20, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE