VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 24.7.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pathankot vide which application moved by the petitioners for appointment of Local Commissioner has been ordered to be dismissed.
(2.) THIS revision petition is not competent in view of the law laid down by this court in the cases of Sumer Chand Jain v. Vishnu Bhagwan Mangla, 2006(2) RCR(Civil) 445 and Hari Om v. Minish Kumar, (2005-2) P.L.R. 690 wherein this court has been pleased to lay down that the order of appointing or refusing to appoint a Local Commissioner is not revisable. Mr. G.S. Jaswal, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Anil Kamalakar Shirodhkar v. Dudhappa Santu Patil and Anr., 2002(3) RCR(Civil) 681 : 2002(2) Civil Court Cases 171 to contend that as in the present case the dispute was with regard to the encroachment, the local commissioner could be appointed for measurement of the property and to demarcate the boundaries of the property. This proposition cannot be disputed. However, once the court has refused to appoint a Local Commissioner the same cannot be a subject matter of challenge in revision in view of the law laid down by this court.
(3.) THUS no benefit can be drawn by the petitioners from the judgment relied upon.;