Civil Revision No.1750 of 2007 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1750 of 2007 Date of decision: 10.2.2009 Maghar Singh ...Petitioner Versus Mohinder Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Ms. Sonia G. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.S.Jattana, Advocate for the respondents, S.D.ANAND, J. The grievance of the plaintiff-petitioner is that his plea for the appointment of a local commissioner (for demarcating the land under reference) had been rejected by the learned Trial Court for inappropriate reasons. The plea raised thereby is that the application had been filed in view of the observations made by the Ist Appellate Court while remanding the suit. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents resists the plea by arguing that the present is fourth endeavour made by the plaintiff-petitioner for the appointment of a local commissioner. The correct facts are as under:- Initially one Ajit Singh, Patwari had been appointed a local commissioner to demarcate the land and he gave a report in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. In that very cause, though at a subsequent point of time, he demarcated the land again and gave a report in favour of the defendants-respondents. Both the reports were negatived by the learned Civil Revision No.1750 of 2007 -2- **** Trial Court. For the third time, one Amar Singh Kanungo came to be appointed as a local commissioner for that very purpose. However, a report furnished by him was negatived by the Court by observing that the local commissioner had not conducted the demarcation in accordance with the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner. In that view of things, the present plea filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for demarcation of the land draws sustenance from the observations made by the learned Ist Appellate Court. That plea could not have been validly declined by the learned Trial Court. Mr. A.S.Jattana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents then points out that the evidence of the parties stands concluded and allowance of the plea would amount to further delaying progress of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in an act of resistance points out that the evidence of the parties came to be concluded (during the pendency of the petition) just because no stay order qua the proceedings pending before the Trial Court came to be allowed by this Court. In view of the factual clarification offered by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the validly raised plea for appointment of local commissioner cannot be declined just because the evidence of the parties stands concluded. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that a well reasoned demarcation report shall enable the Trial Court to dispose of the controversy completely and effectually. The petition shall stand allowed, The impugned order dated 14.2.2007 shall stand set aside. The learned Trial Court shall proceed to appoint a competent local Civil Revision No.1750 of 2007 -3- **** commissioner in the relevant behalf. Thereafter, the suit shall be disposed of within three months from the date of receipt of report by the Local Commissioner. February 10, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge