- (1.) Challenge in the present petition is to order dated 30.4.2012 passed by the learned court below whereby the application of the petitioner for appointment of Local Commissioner was rejected.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed a suit for possession against the respondents. The petitioner filed application for appointment of Local Commissioner. He submitted that appointment of Local Commissioner is required to report about the existence of two rooms, kitchen and veranda in disputed property, which the defendants are denying. To prove this fact appointment of Local Commissioner is material as his detailed report of the factual position at the site would clear as to whether the stand taken by the petitioner or the respondents is correct.
(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. It has been consistently opined by this court that an order passed by the court below either appointing or refusing to appoint Local Commissioner neither decides any issue nor adjudicates rights of the parties for the purpose of suit and no revision against the same was held to be maintainable. Reference can be made to a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Pritam Singh and another vs Sunder Lal and others, 1990 98 PunLR 191. Even subsequent thereto, this court had consistently opined in the same lines in the following judgments: i) Smt. Shobha Sahni vs Prem Lata, 2002 4 RCR(Civ) 372; ii) Hari Om vs Manish Kumar,2005 2 HRR 246; iii) Sumer Chand Jain vs Vishnu Bhagwan Mangla, 2006 2 RCR(Civ) 445, iv) Bant Singh alias Balwant Singh and another vs Raghubir Singh and others, 2008 4 RCR(Civ) 260; v) Rajiv Kumar Batra vs Kashmiri Lal Sika, 2010 6 RCR(Civ) 37; and vi) The Bassi Arkh Scheduled Caste Coop.Land Owing Society Limited vs Atma Singh son of Bachan Singh and others,2011 PunLR 164.;