Avtar Singh vs Amarjit Singh

Raj Mohan Singh, J. - Order dated 30.05.2016 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ajnala is under challenge in this revision petition. Vide the impugned order, the application under Order 26, Rule 10 CPC for appointment of Local Commissioner was declined by the trial Court.

Petitioners claimed that the documents viz. Photocopies of Pan Card, Passport, Aadhar Card and qualification certificates from school, college and University were produced. The said documents were issued in the name of plaintiff Amarjit Singh being son of Tara Singh whereas the suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration claiming himself to be son of Kapoor Singh. It was alleged that the applicant-petitioner wanted to verify the original documents from the concerned offices by summoning concerned officials, but the same was not possible and therefore, appointment of Local Commissioner was sought for verification of these documents by visiting the concerned offices at Mumbai and record the statements of concerned officials.

The petitioner showed his willingness to bear all the expenses. The appointment of Local Commissioner was claimed to be very necessary for just and proper decision of the case. The prayer was opposed by the plaintiff-respondent on the ground that appointment of Local Commissioner cannot be claimed to collect evidence for the parties. Onerous obligation of the Court cannot be relegated to the Local Commissioner to collect any evidence for either of the party. The Court cannot delegate/relegate its duty to anyone. The order declining to appoint Local Commissioner is not revisable in nature as no substantial right between the parties has been pleaded before the Court.

In Harvinder Kaur and another v. Godha Ram and another, 1979 AIR (Punjab) 76, the Division Bench of this Court ruled that an order passed during the course of the suit proceedings would be revisable only when it determines or adjudicates some right or obligation of the parties in controversy. A revision would lie against an interlocutory order only, if it determines or adjudicates some right or obligation of the parties in controversy. Even after satisfaction of the aforesaid test, the power of revision would be exercisable by the Court subject to limitations put under sub-Section (1) and the proviso to Section 115 CPC. After deliberating upon the issue, the Division Bench of this Court held no revision would lie against an order passed under Order 26, Rule 9 CPC and the view taken in M/s. Mohinder Kumar Rajinder Parkash Dalmir Singh alias Dalmira and Mangal Singh and another v. Piara Lal, 1971 PLR 531 was reiterated.

The aforesaid view was again reiterated in another Division Bench judgment of this Court in Pritam Singh and anr. v. Sunder Lal and Ors., 1990 PLJ 418. It was held in the said ruling that order refusing to appoint Local Commissioner does not decide any issue, nor adjudicates rights of parties for purpose of suit and, therefore, not revisable. Refusing to appoint Local Commissioner has nothing to do with the rights of the parties. It is the discretion of the Court and, if such discretion is refused, then no prejudice would be caused to the party. Revision is not competent against such an order.

In Sumer Chand Jain v. Vishnu Bhagwan Mangla 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 445, this Court while interpreting the earlier precedents held that the revision petition was not maintainable under Section 115 CPC, then by mere change in the headnote of the petition, the substance cannot be replaced to wriggle out from the rigors of law. Such an order cannot be interfered with even under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The proposition held in Hari Om v. Minish Kumar, 2005(2) PLR 690 was reiterated to hold that by mere change in the headnote of the petition the subject matter cannot be allowed to be wriggled out from the rigor of the law, which is otherwise well settled in view of consistent view of the Court.

In Balbir Kaur and others v. Pushpa Widge and others, 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 318 similar view was taken by this Court by holding that revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against an order refusing to appoint Local Commissioner.

In Rajiv Kumar Batra v. Kashmiri Lal Sika, 2010(6) RCR (Civil) 37, similar view was taken on the basis of consistent views taken by this Court in the previous precedents. Similarly in Rambir Singh v. Gram Panchayat, Narhera and others, 2012(1) PLR 429, it was held that revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 115 CPC against the order dismissing the application for appointment of Local Commissioner is not maintainable.

In view of aforesaid, the revision petition against the order dated 30.05.2016 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ajnala in considered opinion of this Court is not revisable and therefore, this revision petition is dismissed being not maintainable.