Civil Revision No. 4173 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4173 of 2009 Date of decision : 25.5.2010 Jawala Parshad Shukla ....Petitioner Versus Parminder Kumar Sakeri ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr.Vijay Lath, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. H.K.Brinda, Advocate for the respondent S. D. ANAND, J. It is apparent from the pleadings of the parties that the controversy is about whether the impugned construction/super structure has been raised on plot No.180 or 185. It is common ground presently that these two plots are adjacent to each other. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a plea before the learned Trial Court for appointment of a Local Commissioner with a view to demarcate the pleadings aforementioned. The plea came to be negatived by the learned Trial Court by observing that exercise could not be utilised to collect evidence on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner. The very maintainability of the petition is challenged on behalf of the respondents by relying upon Rajiv Kumar Batra Vs. Kashmiri Lal Sika 2010(1) Civil Court Cases 341. The judicial pronouncement aforementioned does not Civil Revision No. 4173 of 2009 2 apply to the present case for want of a parallel of circumstances in that case and the case before this Court. In the present case, the controversy can be conclusively and factually adjudicated upon on the basis of demarcation of the two plots by a local commissioner. That could be one sure way of getting to the root of the controversy. The allowance of the plea of indicated category cannot be said to tantamount to collection of evidence by the Court on behalf of party. In that view of things, the petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order shall stand set aside. This view of mine is supported by the law laid down in G.Nagabhushanam Vs. T. Eswaramma 2009(3) Civil Court Cases 048 (AP). Disposed of accordingly. May 25, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE