Kawal Nain Singh vs Jagdish Singh And Others on 7 July, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court

C.R. No. 3420 of 2009                                                   [1]




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

                                 CHANDIGARH.

                                  C.R. No. 3420 of 2009

                                  Date of Decision: July 7, 2009



Kawal Nain Singh

                                        .....Petitioner

             Vs.

Jagdish Singh and others

                                        .....Respondents


CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

                           -.-

Present:-    Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

                   -.-



M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated May 13, 2009 (P-

4) dismissing the application of the plaintiff- petitioner to appoint Local

Commissioner to visit the property in dispute to determine the actual status

of the property.

The trial Court while dismissing the application has formed an

opinion that the application has been filed at a belated stage when the

evidence of the plaintiff/ petitioner has already been closed. The issues
C.R. No. 3420 of 2009 [2]

were framed on July 16, 2005 and the plaintiff has led evidence from

August 1, 2005 till 2008. The defendant has examined two witnesses in

November 2008. The application was filed on January 30, 2009 when the

case was fixed for the evidence of the defendant. The trial Court formed an

opinion that the plaintiff wants to get the Local Commissioner appointed

only to collect the evidence to prove their possession over the property in

question which is not permissible.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the application has been

wrongly dismissed on the ground of delay as the petitioner has yet to lead

rebuttal evidence and the delay cannot be made a ground for dismissing the

application for appointment of Local Commissioner.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the

facts and circumstances of this case. I do not find any ground to interfere in

the order passed by the trial Court that the Court cannot become a party by

appointing Local Commissioner to determine possession.

Dismissed.

This order will not, in any manner, prejudice the rights of the

petitioner to establish, in accordance with law, his possession over the

property in dispute.

July 7, 2009                                         (M.M.S.BEDI)
 sanjay                                                JUDGE

Leave a Comment Cancel