Ram Chand Gupta, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 25.3.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Palwal, vide which application filed by Petitioner -Plaintiff for appointment of Local Commissioner has been dismissed.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for permanent injunction was filed by Petitioner -Plaintiff on the plea that wall shown by letters "AB" is a joint wall of the parties and Respondents be restrained from demolishing the same. Suit was contested by Respondents -Plaintiffs. Issues were framed. Evidence was adduced by both the parties and the case was fixed for arguments, when an application was filed on behalf of the Petitioner for appointment of Local Commissioner, which was dismissed by learned trial Court vide impugned order by observing as under: 7. By way of filing the present application, applicant has requested for appointment of a local commissioner to visit the spot and to report about the existing state of affairs. Perusal of case file reveals that the present suit is a simple suit for permanent injunction wherein Plaintiffs/applicants have claimed that the wall 'AB' is the joint wall of the parties. Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendants want to demolish the first floor of the house of the Plaintiffs located on the northern southern portion of the joint wall 'AB' and are threatening to demolish the joint wall 'AB' in dispute. On the other hand Defendants have claimed that wall 'AB' is exclusively owned and possessed by them. Thus it is clear from the pleadings of the parties that there is a dispute regarding the ownership of the wall in dispute 'AB'. The fact regarding the ownership of the wall can be proved only by leading substantial evidence. Both the parties have already concluded their evidence and now at this stage this Court considers that there is no need to appoint any local commissioner for collecting report of existing state of affairs of wall in question. This Court also considers that report of LC is not at all necessary for deciding the matter in controversy involved in the present case. Therefore, keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the application and same is hereby dismissed.
(3.) IT has been contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that appointment of Local Commissioner is necessary for proper adjudication of the case. However, sufficient reasons have been given by learned trial Court for not accepting the request of the Petitioner for appointment of Local Commissioner. Moreover law is well settled that Court is not to collect the evidence for the parties. It was for the Plaintiff to prove that disputed wall is a joint wall.;