VINOD K.SHARMA,J. - (1.) THE petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 27.2.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri disposing of an application moved by the plaintiff-respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) as also against the appointment of local commissioner.
(2.) IMPUGNED order reads as under :- "The plaintiff, Development Strategies (I) Limited has come to the court seeking to restrain the defendants, State of Haryana, from prematurely terminating the contract. They have challenged the notice issued by Director, Mines and Geology, Haryana, defendant No. 2, dated 18.1.2008. The matter was decided by this court a couple of months ago. The judgment of the civil court has been placed on file. Perusal of the judgment, which was based on the earlier notice and the impugned notice dated 18.1.2008 on the basis of which the plaintiff has currently approached the court reveal that the grounds taken by government in the earlier notice and in the resent notice are similar. As per defendants the contract in the name of the plaintiff is liable to be terminated on the ground of violations of the various clauses in the contract agreement whereas the plaintiff alleges that the notice is politically motivated and the civil court has already returned its findings on the various irregularties, alleged by the State of Haryana and no such violation has in fact been committed. Since the Government of Haryana has based the impugned notice datd 18.1.2008 on the basis of spot inspection which no doubt has been done by their own officials, it shall be in the larger interest of justice if a commissioner is appointed to visit the spot and to bring before the court the existing state of appears for complete and effectual adjudication of the matter in controversy. The parties are at liberty to suggest the name of any expert who has the knowledge about mining for appointment as commissioner. The defendants have requested to appoint Director, Mines and Safety, Ghaziabad as Commissioner. However, it may not be in the interest of justice and fair play to appoint a serving official of the State as commissioner, in view of the specific stand taken by the plaintiff that the whole exercise is politically motivated and that the defendants will again obtain a favourable report by exerting undue pressure. It shall be, therefore, in the interest of justice to appoint a retired employee as commissioner. Thus Shri Kjuldeepak Ahuja, State Mining Engineer (Retired) is appointed as commissioner with the directions to visit the spot after serving prior notice to both the parties and to report about the existing state of affairs. The commissioner shall report in detail as per the violations, alleged in impugned notice dated 18.1.2008 with specific mention of the villages where the mining work is allegedly in progress. A copy of the impugned notice dated 18.1.2008 be sent to the commissioner along with this reference. His fee is assessed at Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the plaintiff. In the meanwhile, status quo order to continue. However, the status quo order shall not preclude the concerned authorities to proceed with the matter in accordance with the rules. The report of the commissioner is awaited for 20.3.2008." Revision filed by the petitioners would not be competent as the order passed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code is an appealable order in view of the availability of statutory remedy of appeal.
(3.) THE order appointing local commissioner is also not revisable in view of the law laid down by this court in the cases of Pritam Singh v. Sunder Lal, 1991(1) RRR 356 : (1990-1) PLR 191; Niranjan Singh v. Satwinder Singh (2005-2) PLR 689 and Hari Om v. Manish Kumar, 2005(2) PLR 690.;