IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1626 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 16, 2011. Balraj and another. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Balwant and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Raman B.Garg, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.R.Hooda, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 3. Respondents no.2 and 4 ex parte. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) CM Nos.20238-39 CII of 2011 Learned counsel for the applicants-petitioners states that he be permitted to withdraw the present applications. Dismissed as withdrawn. CR No.1626 of 2011 CR No.1626 of 2011 Petitioners have invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 11.02.2011, Annexure P1 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Hisar. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Only point argued by learned counsel for the petitioners- plaintiffs is that the dispute is regarding Khal i.e. water course and hence, a revenue official should have been appointed by learned trial Court and however, a lawyer has been appointed as Local Commission. Fee of the lawyer was also ordered to be equally shared by both the parties whereas the application filed by the other party was opposed by the petitioner. It has been stated by learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 3 that he is having no objection if some revenue officer is appointed as Local Commission. Hence, in view of these facts, the present revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to appoint the concerned Tehsildar (Revenue) as a Local Commission instead of a lawyer at the cost of respondent-defendant, who has filed application for appointment of Local Commission. Disposed of accordingly. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) 2 CR No.1626 of 2011 September 16, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 3