AVTAR SINGH Vs. AMARJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order dated 30.05.2016 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ajnala is under challenge in this revision petition. Vide the impugned order, the application under Order 26, Rule 10 CPC for appointment of Local Commissioner was declined by the trial Court.

(2.) Petitioners claimed that the documents viz. Photocopies of Pan Card, Passport, Aadhar Card and qualification certificates from school, college and University were produced. The said documents were issued in the name of plaintiff Amarjit Singh being son of Tara Singh whereas the suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration claiming himself to be son of Kapoor Singh. It was alleged that the applicant-petitioner wanted to verify the original documents from the concerned offices by summoning concerned officials, but the same was not possible and therefore, appointment of Local Commissioner was sought for verification of these documents by visiting the concerned offices at Mumbai and record the statements of concerned officials.

(3.) The petitioner showed his willingness to bear all the expenses. The appointment of Local Commissioner was claimed to be very necessary for just and proper decision of the case. The prayer was opposed by the plaintiff-respondent on the ground that appointment of Local Commissioner cannot be claimed to collect evidence for the parties. Onerous obligation of the Court cannot be relegated to the Local Commissioner to collect any evidence for either of the party. The Court cannot delegate/relegate its duty to anyone. The order declining to appoint Local Commissioner is not revisable in nature as no substantial right between the parties has been pleaded before the Court.