In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 2862 of 2009 Date of decision: May 19, 2009 Gurmail Singh and others .. Petitioners Vs. P.U.D.A. and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. B.S. Bali, Advocate for the petitioners. A.N. Jindal, J In a suit for mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff- petitioner (herein referred as 'the petitioner') restraining the defendants from taking possession of the property/changing nature and use and also from interfering in actual possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. An application for appointment of the Local Commissioner has been filed to report about actual and factual position at the spot which was dismissed. Heard. The prayer made in the application is vague and he has not mentioned as to what inspection is to be carried out by the Local Commissioner. Even otherwise, the order declining the appointment of the Local Commissioner does not decide the rights of the parties. No Local Commissioner could be appointed for creating evidence. The petitioner could lead evidence in his own way instead of getting appointed the Local Commissioner for establishing the possession at the spot. This Court in case Dhan Singh vs. Darshan Singh and another, 2007 (1) PLJ 376 while relying upon the Full Bench judgment of this court delivered in case Pritam Singh vs. Sunder Lal 1990 (2) SLJ 636 observed that the revision petition against the order declining the appointment of the Local Commissioner is not maintainable as the said order does not adjudicate the rights of the parties. Resultantly, this petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. May 19, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge