Punjab-Haryana High Court
Murari Lal vs Executive Engineer Haryana Pwd B And R on 18 November, 2024
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:149448
CR-5889-2024(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
***
CR-5889-2024(O&M)
Date of decision : 18.11.2024
Murari Lal
... Petitioner
Versus
Executive Engineer Haryana PWD (B&R) and another
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr.Ashish Tewatia, Advocate
for the petitioner.
VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)
CM-19822-CII-2024
1. This is an application under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section
151 CPC for restoration of the revision petition.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly
supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed and the revision
petition is ordered to be restored to its original number.
CR-5889-2024
1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 21.08.2024
(Annexure P-3) vide which the Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Palwal, had dismissed
the application for appointment of Local Commissioner.
2. The petitioner is the plaintiff, who had filed a suit for
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:149448
permanent injunction. An application was moved by the petitioner for
appointment of Local Commissioner. Vide impugned order dated
21.08.2024, the said application was dismissed on the ground that earlier
also, similar application had been filed and the same was dismissed vide
order dated 05.05.2023 and that a second application with the same prayer
was not maintainable. The order passed in the first application dated
05.05.2023 vide which the application was dismissed on merits has not been
challenged by the petitioner. Thus, on the said short ground alone, the
present revision petition deserves to be dismissed.
3. Additionally, it would be relevant to mention that the present
revision petition challenging the order rejecting the application for
appointment of Local Commissioner, is not maintainable.
4. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pritam Singh
vs. Sunder Lal reported as 1990(2) PLR 191 had observed that the order
refusing to appoint a Local Commissioner does not decide any issue nor
adjudicates rights of the parties for the purpose of the suit and is therefore
not revisable. Learned Single Judge, vide judgment dated 18.07.2022
passed in Civil Revision No.2752 of 2022 in case titled as "Harchand Vs.
Karambir Singh and another", by placing reliance upon the above-said
judgment of Division Bench and also the judgment of the learned Single
Bench in "Raksha Devi Vs. Madan Lal and others", reported as [2017 (3)
PLR 249], had observed that no revision would be maintainable against an
order dismissing an application for appointment of a Local Commissioner.
The relevant portion of the said judgment in Harchand's case (supra) is
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:149448
reproduced as under: -
"4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-
petitioner has contended that the appointment of the Local
Commissioner would be necessary in order to bring on record
the existing position of the suit property.
5. Heard.
6. In the present case the challenge is to the order dismissing the
application for appointment of a Local Commissioner. A Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Pritam Singh Vs. Sunder Lal
[1990(2) PLR 191] inter-alia held as under :
"6. After going through the judgments cited in the
reference order, we do not find that the earlier judgment in
Harvinder Kaur's case (supra) requires any
reconsideration. The order refusing to appoint a local
commissioner does not decide any issue, nor adjudicates
rights of the parties for the purpose of the suit and is,
therefore, not revisable. The distinction sought to be made
by the learned Single Judge in view of the Judgment in M/s
Sadhu Ram Bali Ram's case (supra) was clearly noticed by
the Division Bench in Harvinder Kaur's case (supra) and it
was observed:
"It may be observed that the facts of M/s
Sadhu Ram Bali Ram's case were different as in that
case the onus of an issue had been wrongly placed
and while deciding that question, it was held that
such an order would be revisable."
Apart from that, placing the onus of an issue
has something to do with the rights of the parties
whereas refusing to appoint a Commission under
Order 26, Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure, has
nothing to do with the rights of the parties as such. It
is the discretion of the Court to appoint a
Commission there under and if the Court refuses to
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:149448
appoint a Commission, then no right of any party
can be said to be prejudiced as such."
7. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of Smt.
Raksha Devi Vs. Madan Lal & Ors. [2017(3) PLR 249] wherein
it has categorically been held that no revision would be
maintainable against an order dismissing an application for
appointment of a Local Commissioner. It is trite that an order
refusing to appoint a Local Commissioner does not decide any
issue nor does it adjudicate any rights of the parties for the
purpose of the suit and hence would not be a revisable order.
8. In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this
Court, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order
passed by the Court below.
9. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off."
5. No contrary judgment has been cited on behalf of the learned
counsel for the petitioner.
6. In view of the same, the present revision petition deserves to be
dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
November 18, 2024.
Davinder Kumar
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
