C.R No.1184 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R No.1184 of 2011 Date of decision: 3.3.2011. Rajinder Singh .............Petitioner v Piar Kaur and others ..............Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr. A.S. Khinda, Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh,J By way of present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, plaintiff-petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 22.12.2010 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sultanpur Lodhi whereby his application for appointment of local commissioner was dismissed. Facts are that plaintiff-petitioner filed a civil suit No.252 dated 5.10.2010 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering the house of the plaintiff as described in the head note. During the pendency of the civil suit, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application dated 6.12.2010 for appointment of local commissioner. Upon notice, the application was opposed by the defendants- respondents by filing reply taking a plea that appointment of local C.R No.1184 of 2011 #2# commissioner is not necessary and if the same is allowed that will prejudice the case of the defendant-respondents as it is for the plaintiff to prove his case of his own. Learned counsel argues that the defendants have got registered an FIR in the matter as a pressure tactics and the appointment of local commissioner will be appropriate to prove the actual position of the land in dispute and none of the parties will be prejudiced. It is the case of the defendants that they are married daughters of one Bhagat Singh having no brother. Their father had already died and the disputed house was constructed by parents of the defendants and an electric meter in the said house is also installed in the name of their father. Mohinder Kaur/defendant-respondent No.3 is paying the electric bills regularly. In October 2010, when respondent No.3 visited the house in dispute, she found its gates and locks in broken condition. Some articles were also found to be stolen. It is alleged that respondent No.3 got registered an FIR in this regard. It is further alleged that all has been done by the plaintiff-petitioner and his parents. It is matter of record that along with the main suit also, a similar application dated 4.10.2010 for appointment of local commissioner was filed but the same was not pressed by the plaintiff- petitioner for the reasons best known to him. In the present case, both the parties have levelled counter allegations and the suit is for C.R No.1184 of 2011 #3# permanent injunction by the plaintiff and, therefore, it is the plaintiff, who will have to prove his case and he cannot be allowed to take the benefit by procuring the report of a local commissioner as that will virtually amount to collection of evidence on behalf of the plaintiff and this function cannot be delegated to the local commissioner. Learned trial Court, in my view, has rightly dismissed the application for appointment of local commissioner. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, this court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 22.12.2010 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sultanpur Lodhi warranting any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. 1.3.2011. (Jaswant Singh) manoj Judge