Whether Local Commissioner Appointed By Court Is Witness Of Any Party? Punjab & Haryana High Court Explains

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that Local Commissioner is not a witness of any party and the discretion lies with the Executing Court to permit or refuse to examine the Commissioner.

Justice Deepak Gupta said "the Local Commissioner appointed by the Court is not a witness for any of the party. In fact, he performs his duty as an extended arm of the court and thus to all intent and purposes, he is an officer of the Court."

The Court said further that in case either of the party raises objections to the report of the Local Commissioner, it is to be considered by the Court only to satisfy itself whether the objections must prevail or not.

It is only if the Court finds sufficient grounds that it will be competent to re-issue the same Local Commissioner or under extra ordinary circumstances opt for another Local Commissioner to be issued after scraping the first report, the judge added.

"Merely on the asking of an applicant, it is not mandatory to examine the Local commissioner," said the Court.

Perusing Order 26 Rule 10 CPC, wherein "Procedure of Commissioner" is stated, the Court observed that:

"The use of the word "may" in sub-Rule 2 of Rule 10 of Order 26, as reproduced above would clearly indicate that it is not mandatory for the Court to examine the Local Commissioner".

Justice Gupta highlighted that the Court is required to see as to whether there is some real ground for examining the Local Commissioner. It cannot be for some frivolous ground.

The discretion lies in the Executing Court in a matter of this nature, as to whether it should permit or refuse a party to examine the Commissioner, added the judge.

These observations were made while hearing a revision plea, wherein order declining application to examine the local commissioner was challenged. The matter pertains to a property dispute, wherein the size of the property was in question. The Court noted that the Local Commissioner had conducted the demarcation of the property with the help of Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS).

After examining the submissions, the Court found that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity.

The Court opined that the Executing Court has not committed any error in exercising the discretion vested in it, by declining the request of the petitioner to examine the Commissioner or the Junior Engineer, who had accompanied him at that time.

Also read: Punjab & Haryana High Court Takes Assistance Of Chat GPT To Understand How 'Differential GPS' Helps In Locating Disputed Property

Title: Kuldeep Kumar Sharma v. Randeep Rana

Mr. B.S. Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Akshay Jindal, Advocate with Mr. Vrishank Suri, Advocate for the respondent.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 03

Click here to read/download the order