Punjab-Haryana High Court
Modan Singh vs Gram Panchayat on 11 March, 2022
CR-7916-2018(O&M) -1-
242
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
-.-
CR-7916-2018 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 11.03.2022
Modan Singh ....Petitioner
VERSUS
Gram Panchayat ....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. H.P.S.Ghuman, Advocate, for the respondent.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
Taken up through video conferencing.
This is the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for
quashing of order dated 23.10.2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Nabha whereby the objections dated 22.12.2017 (Annexure P-7) filed by the
plaintiff-petitioner have been dismissed.
The brief facts relevant to the present case are that the Trial Court
on 04.09.2015 had appointed Field Kanungo, Ajnauda as Local Commissioner to
demarcate the suit land of the plaintiff-petitioner being Khasra No.518 (7-0), 519
(6-5) and pahi comprised in Khasra No.521. The Local Commissioner was
appointed on an application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner. The plaintiff-
petitioner filed objections to the report of the Local Commissioner on which
notice was issued and the defendant-respondents were also heard. The Trial
Court vide the impugned order dated 23.10.2018 dismissed the objections filed
to the report of the Local Commissioner holding that the plaintiff-petitioner
1 of 4
CR-7916-2018(O&M) -2-
being the plaintiff had to prove his own case. Aggrieved by the said order the
present petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner would contend that the
report prepared by the Local Commissioner is not as per the High Court Rules
and Orders and the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner and hence
a fresh report ought to have been called for.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant-respondents
has relied upon a judgment by a Division Bench of this Court in 1989(1) PLR
677, Balbir Dewan Cold Storage and General Mills Vs. Naveen Chander to
contend that there is no provision for inviting objections to a report of the Local
Commissioner. In any case, even if objections are filed by either party, neither
of the parties is entitled to claim any issue with respect to the report and the
objection, if any, would be considered after the cross-examination, if any, of the
Local Commissioner by the Court under Rule 10 of Order 26 of the Code of
Civil Procedure and that too along with the other evidence at the time of final
hearing. To a similar effect is the judgment in the case of Chander Pal Vs.
Pahlwan Daya Nand & Ors., 2015 (2) PLR 370.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
In the present case the short point to be considered is whether
objections are maintainable against the report of the Local Commissioner and
secondly whether the present revision petition at this stage would be
maintainable against an order rejecting the objections filed . A Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Balbir Dewan Cold Storage and General Mills (supra)
while dealing with the issue has held as under :
"Thus, from the provisions of Order 26, Rule 10, it is quite
evident that there is no provision for inviting any objection
to the report of the local Commissioner appointed under
2 of 4
CR-7916-2018(O&M) -3-
Rule 9 thereof. In case, any such objections are filed by
either of the parties to draw the attention of the Court as to
the inherent defects therein, the Court may consider the
same and if for any reasons dissatisfied with the proceedings
of the Commissioner, may direct such further inquiry to be
made as it shall think fit but neither of the parties is entitled
to claim any issue with respect to the report The only
provisions under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order 26 of the
Code is to examine the Commissioner personally in open
Court either by the Court itself or by any of the parties with
the permission of the Court The objection, if filed by the
parties, shall be considered after the cross-examination, if
any, of the local Commissioner by the Court under Rule 10
of Order 26 of the Code and that too along with the other
evidence at the time of final hearing."
Yet again in the case of Chander Pal (supra) it has been held as
under :
"5. I am of the view that the learned trial Court is quite
right in making the above observations that the challenge to
the report of Local Commissioner could be made only
during the trial of case, after the Local Commissioner is
cross-examined by the parties about correctness or
otherwise of his report. In view of the above, there is no
merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed."
The law stands crystallized that firstly there is no provision in law
for inviting any objections qua the report of a Local Commissioner and even if
any such objections are filed by either of the parties, the same can only be gone
into after the Local Commissioner has been cross-examined by the Court under
Order 26 Rule 10 CPC that too along with the other evidence at time of final
hearing.
3 of 4
CR-7916-2018(O&M) -4-
Keeping in view the law laid down that that objections, if any, to a
report by the Local Commissioner can only be considered at the time of final
hearing of the case, the present petition itself at this stage would not be
maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. So ordered.
It would, however, be open to the plaintiff-petitioner to raise all
objections taken herein at the time of final hearing of the case before the Trial
Court.
Pending application, if any, also stand disposed off.
March 11, 2022 ( ALKA SARIN )
tripti JUDGE
NOTE : Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : YES/NO
4 of 4
