Sukhwant Singh And Others vs Hardev Singh And Others on 25 February, 2009

CR No. 984 of 2009                                1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH


                                    CR No. 984 of 2009
                               Date of decision February 25, 2009

Sukhwant Singh and others
                                                        .......   Petitioner
                               Versus

Hardev Singh and others
                                                        ........Respondents


CORAM:            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

Present:-          Mr. K. S. Rekhi, Advocate
                   for the petitioner .



                         ****

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?

2. To be referred to the reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
digest?

K. Kannan, J (oral).

1. The revision is against the refusal of the Court to

permit the plaintiff to have the property inspected by the Revenue Officer.

2. The Court below has considered from the over all

facts that both the parties have led their respective evidence and the case

was at the stage of rebuttal and for arguments. The Court has observed

that sufficient evidence has been led in and the case being at the final

stage and pending since the year 2004, there was no justification for

moving an application for appointment of Revenue Officer as a

Commissioner to inspect the property. The attempt affording to learned

Judge, is to delay the proceedings and declined to award the relief sought

for in the application. Learned counsel for the petitioner cites the decision

in Punjab Wakf Board Vs. Sh. Neeko reported in RCR (Civil) 2004 (3)

506 that the application for appointment of Local Commissioner could be
CR No. 984 of 2009 2

moved at any stage. There is no dispute on the proposition that the

application to appoint Commissioner could be made at any stage but it all

depends whether the Court requires assistance of such Commissioner at

any point of time. While the Courts discretion cannot be whittled down in

any way, it will not be wholly without justification that a Court refuses to

obtain such benefit where it finds the conduct of the party is not enabling

the quick dispensation of justice but it is such as to delay and subvert the

justice.

3. The Civil Revision petition is dismissed.

(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE

February 25, 2009
archana