Raj Mohan Singh, J. - (1.) Petitioner assails order dated 27.09.2016 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), SBS Nagar vide which application for appointment of local Commissioner at the instance of the plaintiff-petitioner was declined.
(2.) The application was filed with a view to seek directions to the local Commissioner to demarcate the suit property in order to ascertain possession of the party. Applicant plaintiff contends that a wrong Sanad Takseem was prepared and the same was not properly drawn. Possession of the property was illegally shown to have been delivered in favour of the defendants. The prayer was opposed by defendant No.1 on the premise that after the partition, Sanad Takseem was prepared. With the preparation of Sanad Takseem, there was a severance of joint status between the parties, therefore, the suit itself was not maintainable in terms of Section 111 and 158 of Punjab Land Revenue Act.
(3.) It is a settled principle that a Local Commissioner cannot be appointed in favour of any party for the purposes of collection of evidence. The process of the Court cannot be utilized to collect evidence in favour of either of the party to the litigation. Refusing to appoint Local Commissioner would not decide any substantial right between the parties. Since there is no lis in respect of identification of the land, therefore, the appointment of Local Commissioner would definitely tell upon title in favour or against one of the party. The core issue would be whether the order declining to appoint Local Commissioner is revisable order or not.;