Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kartar Singh Deceased Through His Lr vs Paramjit Kaur And Others on 24 January, 2024
CR-426-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:010890 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(133) CR-426-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 24.01.2024
Kartar Singh (deceased) through LR ... Petitioner
Versus
Paramjit Kaur and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RITU TAGORE
Present: Mr. G.S. Sirphikhi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
3 2fe 2c 24
RITU TAGORE, J
1. Challenge in this revision petition is to order dated 04.01.2024
(Annexure P-8) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala in
CS-197-2018 vide which application filed by petitioner (plaintiff) for
appointment of Local Commissioner was dismissed.
2. Considering the limited prayer made by the petitioner, this Court
does not deem it necessary to issue notice to respondents No.1 and 2, as such,
their service is dispensed with.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that plaintiff filed a
suit for permanent injunction, seeking to restrain the defendants/respondents
No.1 and 2 from interfering in the plaintiff's actual and exclusive possession
in the suit property being part and parcel of Khasra No.14R/29, shown as
ABCD in the site plan or dispossessing him from the same. With further
assertions that defendants have no concern with the suit land, being neither
co-sharers nor owners of the same, and hold no right, title or interest in it. In
their written statement, the respondents (defendants before learned lower
manpreersinch Court) assert that suit property is part and parcel of Khasra Nos.13R/30, 34,
fattest to the accu racy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-426-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:010890 2
35/1, 12R/27, 13R/36/2, 38 and not a part and parcel of the Khasra
Nos.14R/29. Learned counsel also referred to the statement of respondent
No.1 (defendant No.1), who appeared as DW-2 and in her cross-examination
admitted that she never purchased Khasra Nos.14R/29 and have no concern
with the same. She also recorded her no objection if the Revenue Official is
appointed as Local Commissioner to demarcate the property in dispute and
ascertain its khasra number. It is stated that learned Court below has also
framed an issue on this matter.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is a dispute
over the identity of the suit property and a fact is also noted by the Court
below. However, the application for appointment of a Local Commissioner
was erroneously disallowed by the Court below. Learned counsel stated that in
matters where identity of the suit land is in issue and matter can be resolved
by having report from the revenue official, he should be deputed to prepare
the report. While relying upon 'Shreepat vs. Rajendra Prasad and others'
2000 (6) Supreme 389, prayed to set aside the impugned order.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone
through the paper book and the record with his able assistance.
6. Perusal of impugned order would reveal that learned lower Court
observed that identity of suit property is in dispute. Petitioner/plaintiff asserts
that it is a part and parcel of the Khasra Nos.14R/29 and defendants claim that
it is a part and parcel of Khasra Nos. 13R/30, 34, 35/1, 12R/27, 13R/36/2, 38
and not Khasra Nos.14R/29.
7. Learned lower Court dismissed the application primarily on
grounds that issues have already been framed and parties are obliged to lead
evidence to prove their case. The Court is not to collect evidence for parties.
CR-426-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:010890 3
8. In matters where identity of property is a material fact in issue
and such an issue can be resolved by having report from the revenue official,
the Court should appoint a Local Commissioner and obtain the report. In
given pleadings of the parties, where the identity of suit land is seriously in
dispute, the learned trial Court to minimize the scope of litigation, should have
appointed some Revenue Officer as Local Commissioner to demarcate the suit
land and report whether suit land is a part and parcel of Khasra Nos.13R/30,
34, 35/1, 12R/27, 13R/36/2, 38 or Khasra Nos.14R/29. In Shreepat (supra)
dispute was with regard to a land as to whether it falls in a particular Khasra
number or not. Against the aforesaid factual backdrop, it was observed that
Commissioner should be appointed to locate khasra number.
9. In view of the above discussion, impugned order does not
withstand judicial scrutiny, same is hereby set aside. The learned lower Court
is directed to hear afresh the application for appointment of Local
Commissioner, in the light of above observations.
10. Revision petition is disposed of, in the above terms.
11. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(RITU TAGORE)
JUDGE
January 24, 2024
Manpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
