In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 3194 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.8.2009 Pritpal ......petitioner Versus Mangal Singh and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Veneet Sehgal, Advocate. for the petitioner. Mr.Balram Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. **** SABINA, J. Vide this revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.5.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Jalandhar. Pritpal Singh and Kulbir Kaur filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in their peaceful possession over the suit land. During the pendency of the suit, defendant Mangal Singh filed an application for appointment of the Local Commissioner to visit the spot and to report with regard to the factual position Civil Revision No. 3194 of 2009 (O&M) -2- regarding the suit land i.e. as to whether the same was under cultivation or was a colony. Vide the impugned order, the application filed by the defendant was allowed. Hence, the present revision petition. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that there is no ground for interference by this Court. Admittedly, the plaintiffs have concluded their evidence. Now the case is listed for defendant's evidence. The filing of application for appointment of the Local Commissioner to ascertain as to whether the suit property is under cultivation or is a colony cannot be said to be an effort to collect evidence. Rather the report of the Local Commissioner would help the Court in reaching at a correct decision with regard to the nature of the suit property. Moreover, the plaintiffs can rebut the report of the Local Commissioner in accordance with law. Hence, the impugned order does not call for any interference. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 10, 2009 anita