C.R. No. 2687 of 2009(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 2687 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 17, 2009 Jang Bahadur …..Petitioner Vs. Subash @ Pala and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated August 24,2009 by virtue of which the trial Court has ordered that in view of the report of Tehsildar Hisar to the effect that manual demarcation of the suit land is not possible and the same should be conducted through survey machine, the trial Court had observed that there is no justification to further give any direction to the Local Commissioner on account of his report. C.R. No. 2687 of 2009(O&M) [2] Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that vide order dated Mach 16, 2009, the trial Court on the basis of the statement of counsel for both the parties i.e. counsel for the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 4 had appointed Tehsildar Hisar as Local Commissioner for demarcation of Khasra No. 224/9 situated in Uklana Mandi, Uklana in presence of the parties. Tehsildar made a report dated April 10, 2009 that it was not possible to carry out the demarcation manually and a request was made to the Court for conducting demarcation by survey machine. It was argued that the impugned order is not an order declining to appoint a Local Commissioner but it is an order for withdrawing the direction which had originally been issued to the Local Commissioner to demarcate the property in dispute. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the facts of the present case. The petitioner is a plaintiff who had filed a suit for possession after removal of the encroachments made by the defendants over the plot of the plaintiff- petitioner comprised in khasra No. 224/9 situated in Uklana Mandi, Uklana, which is reflected in red colour in the site plan and marked as EFGH in the plan attached with the plaint. The suit was filed in the year 2002. The first order of appointment of Local Commissioner as a consent order but subsequent to the difficulty faced by Tehsildar Hisar, the defendant- respondents for the reasons best known to them have refused to give consent for demarcation of the suit land by survey machine. The trial Court has opted not to give any further direction to appoint any Local Commissioner in pursuance to the report of Tehsildar. A direction is sought C.R. No. 2687 of 2009(O&M) [3] through this revision petition under Section 227 of the Constitution of India to the trial Court to direct the Local Commissioner to conduct the survey that with survey machine. It is a settled principle of law that an order passed by the trial Court declining to appoint Local Commissioner is not revisable order. Even otherwise, the Courts cannot create evidence for any of the litigating parties. Taking into consideration the stage of the case, the trial Court has opted not to give any directions. The said order does not warrant any interference. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner moves an application for appointment of Local Commissioner at his own costs and if the Court deems it appropriate taking into consideration the material before it that the appointment of the Local Commissioner or conducting survey by survey machine is necessary for arriving at a just conclusion and for the fair decision of the case, it will be open to the trial Court to pass a fresh order. This revision petition has been dismissed for the reason that the passed on the basis of the consent of both the parties has been withdrawn after the consent given by the defendants for demarcation of the suit land. With the above liberty, revision petition is dismissed. August 17, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE