***

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) –

1. Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 19.02.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Rent Controller, Malerkotla.

2. The respondent had filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction, 1949 for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question on 05.07.2018. The petitioner had filed the reply and on 04.02.2025, an application was moved by the petitioner for appointment of Local Commissioner directing him to visit the spot of alleged suit land/plot and to give his report regarding alleged suit property. The Rent Controller, vide impugned order dated 19.02.2025 dismissed the said application by observing that it was for the petitioner/tenant to prove his stand by leading evidence and the Court cannot collect evidence on behalf of the petitioner. It was further observed that the case was at its fag end, inasmuch as, the application was filed at the stage when the cross-examination of the present petitioner/tenant was being conducted.

3. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the paper-book and is of the opinion that the order dated 19.02.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Rent Controller, Malerkotla, is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld, inasmuch as, it is a matter of settled law that the Court is not to collect evidence for either of the parties.

4. It would be relevant to note that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of “Pritam Singh Vs. Sunder Lal”, reported as 1990 (2) PLR 191 had observed that the order refusing to appoint a Local Commissioner does not decide any issue nor adjudicates rights of the parties for the purpose of the suit and is therefore not revisable. Learned Single Judge, vide judgment dated 18.07.2022 passed in Civil Revision No.2752 of 2022 in case titled as “Harchand Vs. Karambir Singh and another”, by placing reliance upon the above-said judgment of Division Bench and also the judgment of the learned Single Bench in “Raksha Devi Vs. Madan Lal and others”, reported as [2017 (3) PLR 249], had observed that no revision would be maintainable against an order dismissing an application for appointment of a Local Commissioner. The relevant portion of the said judgment in Harchand's case (supra) is reproduced as under: -

“4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner has contended that the appointment of the Local Commissioner would be necessary in order to bring on record the existing position of the suit property.

5. Heard.

6. In the present case the challenge is to the order dismissing the application for appointment of a Local Commissioner. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pritam Singh Vs. Sunder Lal [1990(2) PLR 191] inter-alia held as under :

“6. After going through the judgments cited in the reference order, we do not find that the earlier judgment in Harvinder Kaur's case (supra) requires any reconsideration. The order refusing to appoint a local commissioner does not decide any issue, nor adjudicates rights of the parties for the purpose of the suit and is, therefore, not revisable. The distinction sought to be made by the learned Single Judge in view of the Judgment in M/s Sadhu Ram Bali Ram's case (supra) was clearly noticed by the Division Bench in Harvinder Kaur's case (supra) and it was observed:

“It may be observed that the facts of M/s Sadhu Ram Bali Ram's case were different as in that case the onus of an issue had been wrongly placed and while deciding that question, it was held that such an order would be revisable.”

Apart from that, placing the onus of an issue has something to do with the rights of the parties whereas refusing to appoint a Commission under Order 26, Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure, has nothing to do with the rights of the parties as such. It is the discretion of the Court to appoint a Commission there under and if the Court refuses to appoint a Commission, then no right of any party can be said to be prejudiced as such.”

7. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of Smt. Raksha Devi Vs. Madan Lal & Ors. [2017(3) PLR 249] wherein it has categorically been held that no revision would be maintainable against an order dismissing an application for appointment of a Local Commissioner. It is trite that an order refusing to appoint a Local Commissioner does not decide any issue nor does it adjudicate any rights of the parties for the purpose of the suit and hence would not be a revisable order.

8. In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Court below.

9. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.”

5. The provision of Order 26 Rule 9 CPC is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“9. Commissions to make local investigations.—In any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the market-value of any property, or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits, the Court may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court;

Provided that, where the State Government has made rules as to the persons to whom such commission shall be issued, the Court shall be bound by such rules.”

A perusal of the said provision would show that the same provides that it is within the power of the Court to issue a Commission to such person as it thinks fit, to make an investigation on some aspect. A further reading of the said provision would show that there is no right vested in favour of a party to get the said commission issued and rather the same is an enabling provision that enables the Court to appoint a Commissioner if it is of the opinion that the same is required in a case.

6. Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned order has been correctly passed and deserves to be upheld and the revision petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed.

7. Needless to mention that the rejection of the application for appointment of local commissioner and dismissal of the present revision petition would not come in the way of the petitioner to lead his independent evidence in support of his pleas in the written statement, in accordance with law.

Petition dismissed.

********