In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 7921 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 06, 2010 Rajinder Kumar ---Petitioner versus Davender Kumar Sanghi and others ---Respondents Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.J.P.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner *** GURDEV SINGH, J. The petitioner, Rajinder Kumar, who is the defendant in the civil suit before the trial court, has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 26.11.2010, passed by Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Narnaul, dismissing his application for the appointment of Local Commissioner. The suit has been filed by the respondents-plaintiffs, Davender Kumar Sanghi and others, for possession of the shop in dispute and for directing the defendant to pay rent for the period mentioned therein. In the suit, the defendant filed application for the appointment of Local Commissioner in order to ascertain whether roof of the shop in dispute consists of lintel or “gatter patti”. After going through the records, the Civil Revision No. 7921 of 2010 (O&M) -2- learned trial court dismissed that application. I have heard counsel for the petitioner. It is has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the application could not have been dismissed, on the ground mentioned in the order. Even if the case had become old, the defendant should not have been deprived of his right for the appointment of Local Commissioner for the purpose, mentioned in the application. The delay was not the only ground on which the application was dismissed. It was also observed by the trial court that the nature of the construction of the roof of the shop was not disclosed by the plaintiffs either in his pleadings or in his evidence. The agency of the Local Commission cannot be used for the collection of the evidence on behalf of any party. The Local Commissioner is to be appointed when the nature of the evidence, to be collected, is such that it cannot be collected in any other manner. The defendant could have easily produced the evidence for proving the nature of the constructions of the roof of the shop. The application was correctly dismissed by the trial court and that order does not suffer from any illegality. Revision petition is dismissed accordingly. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE December 06, 2010 PARAMJIT