Civil Revision No. 3597 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 3597 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.8.2009 Jagdish Tayal and another ......petitioners Versus Satpal .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Ajay Jain, Advocate. for the petitioners. Mr.Anurag Jain, Advocate, for the respondent. **** SABINA, J. The petitioners have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 8.6.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Hisar, whereby application for directing the Local Commissioner to re-visit the spot along with a revenue official was dismissed. Plaintiff Satpal filed a suit for prohibitory and mandatory injunction to the effect that the defendants had got no right, title or interest with regard to the land in dispute measuring 5 kanals 19 marlas. During the pendency of the suit Local Commissioner was appointed to visit the spot and give report with regard to actual state Civil Revision No. 3597 of 2009 (O&M) 2 of affairs regarding existence of barbared wire. The Local Commissioner visited the spot and reported as under:- “There were many houses existing at the dispute site. Some houses were under construction also. There was no area enclosed by the barbared wire. Rather, there was a vertical row, about 200 feet long having cemented poles and barbered wire at the farther end of the site in question as shown in the rough site plan, marked as Annexure D. This barbered wire too was discontinuous. Barring the above stated barbered wire, there was no other barbered wire in the site. The plaintiff and the defendant had no consensus regarding the area and the Khasra numbers of the disputed site. The plaintiff contended that the approximately 200 ft. long barbered wire comprised a part of the disputed site whereas the defendant refuted his contention and opined that the above mentioned barbered wire comprised a part of a different khasra number, outside the disputed land. In the absence of any revenue official, the disputed site could not be identified and demarcated. The plaintiff and the defendant started exchanging hot words. After inspecting and preparing the site plan, I Civil Revision No. 3597 of 2009 (O&M) 3 left the site at about 5.20 p.m.” Thereafter, the petitioners moved another application that the Local Commissioner should again visit the spot and get the same identified from revenue fficial and then submit report. The said application was dismissed vide the impugned order. Hence, the present revision petition. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this revision petition is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. Local Commissioner, after visiting the spot, has prepared the site plan and has submitted the report. Both the parties started exchanging hot words and disputed the site in question. The rough site plan prepared by the Local Commissioner depicts the factual situation at the spot. Learned trial Court had rightly held that there was already sufficient material on record and the Local Commissioner had satisfied the order dated 20.3.2009 vide which she was appointed to visit the spot and submit report. Hence, no ground for interference is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 18, 2009 anita