IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3987 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: September 6, 2011. Ramesh Singh. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Karora Singh and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. H.P.S.Kochhar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 04.05.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh dismissing his prayer in application filed under Order 39 Rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) and an application dated 26.04.2010 filed under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of Local Commissioner. CR No.3987 of 2010 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh. Brief facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that, suit filed by present petitioner-plaintiff was dismissed by learned trial Court. He has filed appeal against the said judgment and decree before learned first appellate Court i.e. Additional District Judge, Chandigarh. While admitting the appeal of petitioner-plaintiff, learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh vide order dated 16.03.2010 restrained respondents- defendants from raising any type of construction on the common passage in question. Present petitioner filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC against respondents-defendants for allegedly raising construction in violation of order dated 16.03.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh. In the application prayer was made for appointment of Local Commissioner. Separate application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC was also filed by the petitioner praying for appointment of Local Commissioner. However, prayer was declined by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh vide impugned order by observing that it was for the petitioner/applicant to prove his plea taken in the application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC and the court is not to collect evidence on behalf of the parties. Learned counsel for the respondents at the very outset raised an objection that revision petition against order passed by learned court below rejecting the application of the petitioner for appointment of Local Commissioner is not maintainable. 2 CR No.3987 of 2010 Law is well settled by this Court in various judgments that no revision lies against the order passed by learned trial Court refusing to appoint Local Commissioner in its discretion. Hence, discretion exercised by learned trial Court cannot be interfered by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction, either under Section 115 CPC or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In Pritam Singh and another v. Sunder Lal and others, 1990 (2) PLR 191: 1990 PLJ 418: 1991(1) RRR 356: 1990(2) LJR 244, a Division Bench of this Court by relying upon the decision of this Court rendered in Harvinder Kaur v. Godha Ram, ILR 1979(1) Punjab and Haryana 147 has observed that no revision would lie against an order passed under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code. This Court in subsequent judgment rendered in Sumer Chand Jain v. Vishnu Bhagwan Mangla, 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 445: 2006(2) PLR 844: 2006(1) PLJ 59 by placing reliance upon Harvinder Kaur's case (supra) and Pritam Singh's case (supra) observed as under:- “In two Division Bench decisions of this Court in Smt. Harvinder Kaur and another v. Godha Ram and another, AIR 1979 Punjab and Haryana 76 and Pritam Singh v. Sunder Lal, 1991 (1) RRR 356 :(1990-2) 98 PLR 191, it has been held that the order refusing to appoint the Local Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. is not revisable under Section 115 C.P.C., therefore, such an order should not be interfered now under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, in Hari Om v. Minish Kumar, (2005-2) PLR 690, it was observed by this Court that if a revision petition under Section 115 C.P.C. against the impugned order is not maintainable, then by mere 3 CR No.3987 of 2010 change in the head note of the petition, the substance cannot be replaced to wriggle out from the rigors of law which is well settled that no revision petition under Section 115 C.P.C. is maintainable.” On the same point are the decisions of this Court in subsequent judgments rendered in Bant Singh alias Balwant Singh and another v. Raghubir Singh and others, 2008(4) RCR (Civil) 260: 2008(2) RCR (Rent) 297 and Rajiv Kumar Batra v. Kashmiri Lal Sika, 2010(6) RCR (Civil) 37 in which also it was held that revision petition either under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or under Section 115 of the Code is not maintainable against an order dismissing application for appointment of Local Commissioner. Sufficient reasons have been given by learned Additiona District Judge, Chandigarh in rejecting the prayer of applicant/petitioner for appointment of Local Commissioner. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh in passing the impugned order or grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon’ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2003(6) SCC 675: AIR 2003 SC 3044: 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147 that supervisory jurisdiction is not available to be exercised for indulging in re-appreciation or evaluation of 4 CR No.3987 of 2010 evidence or correcting the errors for drawing inference like a Court of appeal. It has been observed as under:- “Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied: (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.” Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 6, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 5