- (1.) This will also dispose of Cs. Nos. 596, 597, 598 of 1989 as the question involved is common in all the four cases.
(2.) The plaintiff Barinder Singh filed a suit for declaration challenging the sale made by his father alleging the property to be Joint Hindu Family ancestral co-parcenary property. During the suit, he moved an application for appointment of a commission through proper channel so as to ascertain that fact from Pakistan where the land was originally situated. That application was contested on behalf of the defendants. The trial court dismissed the said application with the observations: "I am not satisfied that the plaintiff tried to obtain the relevant record which may be available in India or the plaintiff tried to obtain the copies of relevant record through Embassy. Moreover, after the partition, all the revenue record was sent to India. The plaintiff should try to get the copies of relevant record from the revenue office in India if that is not available in India only then Commission may be issued. Hence in this case I am not satisfied that the plaintiff made any efforts to get "the relevant record which may be available in India."
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if no commission could be appointed at this stage, in view of the provisions of section 77 of the Civil Procedure Code, letter of request should have been issued by the trial Court.;