In CR No.5729 of 2022 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- Facts are to be ascertained by Trial Court after evaluating evidence and Local Commissioner cannot be delegated power of Court for said purpose: P&H HC 
Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta [23-01-2023]

Read Order: PARVEEN GOYAL AND ANOTHER VS RAGHBIR SINGH 

Mansimran Kaur

Chandigarh, January 25, 2023:  While dismissing the revision petition challenging the order passed by the  Civil Judge  in  a Civil Suit,  whereby the application moved by them under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC for seeking the appointment of the Local Commissioner was dismissed, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has opined that  the appointment of the Local Commissioner would certainly amount to collecting the evidence for the defendants and rather, the facts are to be ascertained by the trial Court after appreciating and evaluating the evidence. 

“The Local Commissioner cannot be delegated the power of the trial Court for the said purpose”, Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta said.

As regards the area of the suit property, the respondent plaintiff had  specifically mentioned the boundaries and dimensions of the same in the plaint and in their written statement, the defendants claim to have entered into an agreement to sell in respect of this property and the said agreement, though not placed on the file by them (defendants), is supposed to be containing the categoric details of the boundaries and dimensions of the subject matter thereof and therefore, there would be no necessity to seek the report from the Local Commissioner in respect thereof, the Court noted. 

It was further noted that the appointment of the Local Commissioner would certainly amount to collecting the evidence for the defendants and rather, the facts are to be ascertained by the trial Court after appreciating and evaluating the evidence, as may be led by both the parties on the record in support of their respective contentions qua the same.

“The Local Commissioner cannot be delegated the power of the trial Court for the said purpose”, the Bench remarked.

In view of such discussion, the Court was of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality, irregularity or perversity so as to call for any interference by this Court. 

Resultantly, the revision petition in hand, being bereft of any merit, stood dismissed.