Brij Mohan Aggarwal vs Ramesh Chand on 9 July, 2009

Civil Revision No. 1458 of 2009 (O&M)
                                                                        -1-

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH



                              Civil Revision No. 1458 of 2009 (O&M)
                              Date of decision: 09.07.2009


Brij Mohan Aggarwal
                                                              ....Petitioner



                    Versus



Ramesh Chand
                                                            ....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA

Present: -Mr. Vivek Arora, Advocate,
          for the petitioner.

                    *****

VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL)

C.M. No. 6363-CII of 2009

Allowed as prayed for.

C.R. No. 1458 of 2009

This revision petition is directed against the order dated

16.10.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar, vide

which the application moved by the petitioner for appointment of Local

Commissioner has been rejected. The petitioner also prayed for recalling

of an order earlier passed.

The petitioner is a decree-holder. An order passed by the

learned Executing Court was challenged by the petitioner by way of civil

revision petition No. 2350 of 2002. The revision petition was allowed by

this Court, and the impugned order was set aside.

In pursuance thereto, the petitioner approached the learned

Executing Court wherein he demanded amount of Rs.1849.05 from the
Civil Revision No. 1458 of 2009 (O&M)
-2-

judgment-debtor. The learned Executing Court directed the counsel

opposite to make payment of the amount outstanding. As regards the

claim of mesne profit, the learned trial Court was pleased to frame the

issues and fix the case for evidence. The petitioner sought recall of the

order framing issues and permitting the petitioner to lead evidence, and

also sought appointment of Local Commissioner.

The learned trial Court has been pleased to dismiss the

application for recall as well as for appointment of Local Commissioner by

holding that it is for the petitioner to lead evidence and Court was not to

collect evidence for him.

It is pertinent to notice here, that the order refusing the

appointment of Local Commissioner is not revisable in view of the law laid

down by this Court in Pritam Singh Vs. Sudhir Lal 1990(1) P.L.R. 191;

Niranjan Singh Vs. Satwinder Singh 2005(2) P.L.R. 689 and Hari Om

Vs. Manish Kumar 2005(2) P.L.R. 690 .

No grievance, therefore, can be raised for non-appointment of

Local Commissioner.

So far as the other claims are concerned, the learned Court

below has passed an order, permitting the petitioner herein to lead

evidence to prove the mesne profit payable to him. The order cannot be

said to be passed against his interest or to his prejudice so as to invoke the

jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

No merit.

Dismissed.

(Vinod K. Sharma)
Judge
July 09, 2009
R.S.