Civil Revision No.99 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.99 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:-July 22,2009 Ram Kanwar ....Petitioner Versus Suraj Bhan and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reports or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported to the Digest? Present: Shri Arun Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri R.D.Yadav, Advocate for the respondents. ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral): The petitioner-plaintiff is aggrieved at the order dated 4.11.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rewari, whereby his application to prove the demarcation report in rebuttal evidence, has been dismissed. It appears that the demarcation report prepared by a revenue officer has been appended by the plaintiff with the plaint, but the same could not be brought on record as a piece of evidence as the revenue officer, who had prepared the report, has not been examined as a witness. Since issue Nos.1 and 2 are required to be proved by the Civil Revision No.99 of 2009 2 petitioner-plaintiff, there can be no doubt that he was required to lead his evidence in affirmative only and cannot be permitted to fill up the lacunae, if any, by producing the evidence in rebuttal. However, having regard to the nature of the lis, where the plaintiff is pleading for identification and fencing of his own share in a joint property, nothing shall preclude the civil Court to appoint a Local Commissioner and get the demarcation done at the spot and to examine him as a Court-witness, which would essentially help to decide the controversy in the most effective manner. Disposed of accordingly. Dasti. (Surya Kant) Judge 22.7.2009 AS