Civil Revision No. 5943 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5943 of 2011 Date of Decision: September 26th,2011 Kashmir Singh and another .... Petitioners Versus Balbir Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Mr. Kamal Narula, Advocate, for the petitioners. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. The present revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been brought by two of the plaintiffs against the order dated 1.8.2001 (Annexure P1) passed by Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, vide which their application for appointment of Local Commissioner to know about the existing position with regard to the land in dispute, construction of houses in numbers, streets, sewerage etc., has been dismissed. The plea of the plaintiffs has been that the father of the respondents, named, Kartar Singh, had alienated the suit land in favour of the petitioners and proforma respondents in his life time and since then, they along with their families are in possession over the suit property as owners. They have claimed their Civil Revision No. 5943 of 2011 2 .. possession thereon to be continuous and uninterrupted. According to them, they have constructed their houses over the suit land and the streets have been constructed by the Gram Panchayat, which is managing the streets and sewerage lines etc. Prayer had been made by way of an application to appoint a Local Commissioner for giving report about the existing position at the spot. The application was opposed by the respondents denying the property to have ever been alienated by Kartar Singh to the petitioners. They have also denied the petitioners to be in continuous or uninterrupted possession over the suit property. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, dismissed the application vide order dated 1.8.2011. Aggrieved by the same, two of the appellants have come up by way of this revision petition and have arrayed the remaining appellants as proforma respondents. I have heard Shri Kamal Narula, learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Local Commissioner was required to be appointed to make a report about the existing position of the suit property with regard to the construction, streets, sewerage lines etc. According to him, learned Appellate Court was not justified in dismissing the same. He has submitted that Local Commissioner can be appointed by Civil Revision No. 5943 of 2011 3 .. the appellate court and no bar to it is contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. I am not impressed by the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. The court cannot pass any order with a view to help a party to collect evidence for it. The evidence has to be led by the parties themselves. The report of the Local Commissioner, sought to be appointed, would be the evidence, which the appellant-petitioners were required to lead before the trial Court. Local Commissioner to make local investigation can be appointed under the provisions of Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC. This is to be done by the court with a view to elucidate any matter in dispute or of ascertaining the market value of any property or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits of a property. The appellants, who had set-up a case of purchase of the suit land from the predecessor of the respondents and to have raised construction of houses and laying streets which were brick paved by the Gram Panchayat, were obliged to lead their evidence in support of this submission. They could themselves engage some draftsman or some revenue official to make local investigations and to prepare a report, and he could be examined as a witness to prove the same. The court did not require the aforesaid report for elucidating any point in controversy or for any other purpose, mentioned in Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the Civil Revision No. 5943 of 2011 4 .. revision petition and, consequently, dismiss the same. A copy of this order be given to learned counsel for the petitioners under the signatures of Bench Secretary of this court. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE September 26th , 2011 som