IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.8009/2011 Date of decision: 22.12.2011. Rachhpal Singh ....................Petitioner v. Harbans Singh and Anr .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.J.S. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) LR of applicant/JD has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against the order dated 12.09.2011(P-4) passed by Learned Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Ludhiana dismissing his application to appoint any Revenue Officer as Local Commissioner to decide as to whether the property in dispute falls in the passage or in Khasra No.648 & 649. It is apparent that in Execution proceedings applicant/JD filed an application under Section 47 and Section 75 CPC for holding a scientific or expert investigation of the property in dispute by appointing Local Commissioner to determine as to whether the property in dispute falls in the passage or in Khasra No.648 & 649. It was alleged that respondent/decree holder has concealed the identity of the property by not giving khasra numbers and the local commissioner who was appointed earlier failed to disclose the description/ownership of the property. Accordingly it was prayed that a revenue officer be appointed as Local Commissioner. Upon notice respondent/decree holder contested the application by stating that the applicant/JD in disobedience of the decree dated 21.3.1995 had installed a gate and obstructed the street/village passage on 12/13.9.1997. It was also alleged that the decree dated 21.3.1995 having become final the applicant/JD could not take up these objections. It was further alleged that JD had filed objections against the report of the local commissioner which were also dismissed on 29.10.2010. The learned Executing Court after hearing both side and perusing the material available on record found that the revenue officer is not competent to hold any scientific/technical investigation and that no such investigation was required. It was further found by the learned Executing Court that as per report of the local commissioner applicant/JD had caused obstruction and the objections filed by appelant/JD against the Local Commissioner's report were also dismissed on 29.10.2010. Further I am in agreement with the observation of the Executing Court that it cannot go behind the decree when the same has attained finality and that the application in question was filed just to delay the proceedings of the case. At the time of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner could not find out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. 22.12.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge