Order XXVI CPC | Order Refusing Appointment Of Local Commissioner Not Revisable: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a revision petition for setting aside order passed by the Additional Civil Judge dismissing plaintiff's application for appointment of a Local Commissioner, held that order refusing appointment of Local Commissioner does not decide any issue nor does it adjudicate rights of the parties and hence would not be a revisable order. It...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a revision petition for setting aside order passed by the Additional Civil Judge dismissing plaintiff's application for appointment of a Local Commissioner, held that order refusing appointment of Local Commissioner does not decide any issue nor does it adjudicate rights of the parties and hence would not be a revisable order.
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.
The bench comprising Justice Alka Sarin further added that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Court below to attract intervention by this court.
The Petitioner-plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant-respondents from interfering in his peaceful possession and cultivation over suit land. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code for appointment of a Local Commissioner for bringing on record the existing position of the suit property.
The said application was contested by the defendant-respondents inter-alia pleading that the plaintiff-petitioner had filed the application just to delay the proceedings and that the plaintiff-petitioner has no locus standi and cause of action to file the application.
The application was dismissed and the plaintiff--petitioner sought revision of the said order herein.
The High Court relied on the judgement of Pritam Singh Vs. Sunder Lal [1990(2) PLR 191] wherein it was held that 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 appoint a Commission, then no right of any party can be said to be prejudiced as such.
Court further relied on another judgement of Smt. Raksha Devi Vs. Madan Lal & Ors. [2017(3) PLR 249] wherein a similar view was taken.
In view of the law laid down and the facts and circumstances, the court dismissed the instant revision petition.
Case Title : Harchand v. Karambir Singh and Another
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 199