CR No.5302 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5302 of 2010 Decided on : 23.08.2010 Vinod Kumar Jain ... Petitioner versus Smt. Bhanwati ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present : Mr. A.K.Sehrawat, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. This is plaintiff's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 05.05.2010 whereby Civil judge (Sr. Division) Rohtak has rejected the prayer of the petitioner to appoint the Local Commissioner to demarcate the suit property. As per the averments made in the petition, petitioner filed a suit for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction against the respondent claiming the relief of removal of illegal encroachment in the street and also restraining the respondent from encroaching upon the aforesaid street. In the said suit, petitioner made an application for appointment of an Architect as Local Commissioner for demarcation of the house of the respondent and the street. The aforesaid application was contested by the defendant-respondent on the ground that Local Commissioner cannot be appointed to collect any evidence and it was for the plaintiff-petitioner to prove his own case. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Rohtak vide impugned order rejected the prayer of the CR No.5302 of 2010 -2- petitioner for appointment of local commissioner. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the appointment of local commissioner in the case was necessary to properly demarcate the house of the respondent and the street and the same has been wrongly rejected causing miscarriage of justice to the petitioner and therefore, the aforesaid order is liable to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. The petitioner is claiming ownership in possession of house No.405/7 situated as Paras Mohalla, Bara Bazar, Rohtak and that defendant has adjoining house towards southern side of the plaintiff as per the sale deed. Whereas the defendant- respondent in his reply has denied the ownership of the petitioner over the plot and has alleged that the sale deed filed by petitioner does not confer any title of the property in him as the petitioner has no right in the aforesaid house and has to prove the title of his vendor. The Trial Court also noticed that the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner was already complete and the application filed by him was totally vague and it was for him to prove the case on his own and local commissioner cannot be appointed to collect evidence on his behalf. In view of the aforesaid facts as noticed by the trial court, I find no merit in this petition. It is well settled law that local commissioner cannot be appointed to collect evidence on behalf of a party. Moreover, there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order which warrants interference by this Court. Dismissed. August 23, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) sonia JUDGE