Civil Revision No. 3311 of 2009 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 3311 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 30.5.2009 Mohinder Singh ... Petitioner vs Gurdev Singh ... Respondent Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Harsh Bunger, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal, J. Challenge in the present petitions is to order dated 4.5.2009, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, whereby application filed by the petitioner for appointment of Local Commissioner and for producing copy of jamabandi and khasra girdawari was rejected, after considering the contention raised by both the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that appointment of Local Commissioner was required for just and proper decision of the issue in dispute. He further submitted that respondent was allowed to raise construction in khasra nos. 29, 30, 46//5 but he raised construction in khasra no. 46//6/1 illegaly and to prove this fact appointment of Local Commissioner was material as his detailed report of the factual position at the site would have made clear as to whether the stand taken by the petitioner or the respondent was correct. His further submission was that the petitioner be allowed to produce copy of jamabandi and khasra girdawari in order to prove the previous position of the khasra numbers. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the contention raised. A Division Bench of this Court in Pritam Singh and another vs Sunder Lal and others 1990 (2) Punjab Law Reporter 191 had categorically held that order refusing to appoint a Local Commissioner does not decide any issue nor adjudicate rights of the parties for the purpose of the suit and no revision against that was held to be maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to cite any judgment taking a view contrary to what has been taken by the Division Civil Revision No. 3311 of 2009 (2) Bench of this Court. A Single Bench of this court in Hari Om vs Manish Kumar, 2005(2) HRR 246 also dismissed revision petition filed by the petitioner therein challenging the order refusing to appoint Local Commissioner. The same view was expressed in Civil Revision No. 4294 of 2007 Ramesh Kumar Pashan vs Sumita Bedi and another decided on 28.8.2007. It has also come in the order of the trial court that the case is fixed for arguments. Allowing the petitioner at this stage to produce copy of jamabandi and khasra girdwari would amount to de-novo trial. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. 30.5.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge