Wazir Singh vs Union of India and Others

Sukhdev Singh Kang, J.—This revision petition u/s 115, CPC Code, is directed against the order dated November 21, 1986, of the learned trial Court refusing to appoint a local Commissioner for demarcating the suit property.

At the threshold, an objection has been raised that no revision petition against the order declining to appoint, a local Commissioner is competent because such an order does not amount to a case decided. Reliance has been placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. Harvinder Kaur etc. v. Godha Ram, etc I. L. R. (1979) 1 P&H. 147, wherein it has been held that "a revision would lie against an interlocutory order only if it determines or adjudicates some right or obligation of the parties in controversy. An order refusing to appoint a local Commissioner does not decide any issue nor does it adjudicate any right or obligation of the parties for the purpose of the ruit and is, therefore, not revisable "

On the other hand, Shri S. N. Saini, Advocate, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has invited my attention to the observations of S. P. Goyal, J. in Natha Singh v. Bant Singh (1979) 81 P. L. R. 484, which reads as under:

From the perusal of this Judgment (Smt. Harvinder Kaur''s case, supra), I find that it was because of the peculiar order in that case that the Full Bench (Sic. Division Bench) held that no revision was competent against the order refusing to appoint a local Commissioner. If it was intended to hold that under no circumstance, the revision petition would be competent against the order refusing to appoint a local Commissioner, I would have seriously thought of referring the matter to a larger Bench.

Taking clue from the above observations, Shri Saini has argued that view expressed by the Division Bench in Smt. Harvinder Kaur''s case (supra) does not lay down good law and needs reconsideration.

The view expressed in Natha Singh''s case (supra) is only a tentative one. No final opinion was expressed by the learned Single Judge. Furthermore sitting singly, I am bound by the ratio of the Division Bench decision and even if I take a different view. I cannot refer the matter to a larger Bench because only a Division Bench, if it differs with any proposition of law laid down by another Division Bench, can refer the matter to a larger Bench consisting of more than two Judges.

Respectfully following the ratio of Smt. Harvinder Kaur''s case (supra), I hold that this revision petition is not competent and dismiss the same. It is, however, made clear that since the revision petition has not been decided on merits, it will not be a bar to the Petitioner to urge these very points in appeal, if any. The parties through their respective counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Judge on 27th February, 1987.