Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhdev Singh vs Geja Singh @ Teja Singh on 23 July, 2013
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
C. R. No. 4349 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No. 112
Case No. : C. R. No. 4349 of 2013
Date of Decision : July 23, 2013
Sukhdev Singh .... Petitioner
Vs.
Geja Singh @ Teja Singh .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Mr. J. K. Singla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
* * *
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
Defendant Sukhdev Singh has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 04.07.2013 (Annexure P-3) passed by the trial court, thereby dismissing application (Annexure p-1) filed by defendant-petitioner, for appointment of Local Commissioner.
Respondent-plaintiff Geja Singh @ Teja Singh has filed suit for permanent injunction against defendant-petitioner alleging that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property. The defendant has, however, Monika 2013.07.23 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C. R. No. 4349 of 2013 2 asserted that he is owner in possession thereof.
The defendant, in application (Annexure P-1), alleged that he has constructed toilet and mangers in the suit land and affixed barbed wire on two sides by making pillars. The defendant sought appointment of Local Commissioner to determine which party is in possession of the suit land.
The plaintiff, by filing reply (Annexure P-2), alleged that toilet has been constructed by him and he has also placed dung cakes and tiles. Request for appointment of Local Commissioner was opposed by the plaintiff. Learned trial court, vide impugned order (Annexure P-3), has dismissed the application of petitioner, who has, therefore, filed this revision petition to assail the said order.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioner reiterated that appointment of Local Commissioner is necessary to determine which party is in possession of the suit property. The contention is completely meritless and frivolous. It is the duty and function of the Court to determine which party is in possession of the suit property. The said function cannot be delegated to the Local Commissioner. As regards construction, the same has been admitted by the plaintiff, although alleging that the construction has been raised by him. Spot inspection will not determine as to which party is in possession of the Monika 2013.07.23 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C. R. No. 4349 of 2013 3 suit land, which does not have any substantial construction except toilet etc. Consequently, no purpose would be served by appointing Local Commissioner for spot inspection. At the risk of repetition, it has to be highlighted that power to determine which party is in possession of the suit property cannot be delegated to the Local Commissioner. The said question is the central controversy in the suit, to be determined by the Court.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the application (Annexure P-1) filed by the defendant-petitioner is completely meritless and frivolous and the same has been rightly dismissed by the trial court. There is no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial court so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is completely meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine.
July 23, 2013 ( L. N. MITTAL )
monika JUDGE
Monika
2013.07.23 17:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh