Punjab and Haryana High Court: Recently before the High Court, a revision petition was filed against the order passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meham, District Rohtak, dismissing the application for appointment of the Local Commissioner. The lower court had appointed the Local Commissioner to demarcate the suit property for plaintiff and defendant, but it was told to the commissioner by the applicant that a compromise. The court had rejected the application because she herself refused for demarcation and therefore, was not allowed to take advantage of her own wrong.

However, in the Court, petitioner contended that she was defrauded by the other party for they did not honour the settlement. On considering this contention, the Bench of Anil Kshetrapal, J. said that as far as settlement is concerned, the same could not be the subject- matter in the revision petition before him.

The petitioner further argued that the demarcation in their case was absolutely necessary to lead evidence for both the parties in the case further. To this, the Court responded that the Local commissioner was already appointed for the purpose but because she herself did not allow him to demarcate, it was now petitioner’s responsibility to lead the evidence.

Finally, the Court relying on its earlier decisions held that revision petition against the order dismissing the application for appointment of the Local Commissioner is not maintainable and for the very same reason, present revision petition was liable to be dismissed. [Geeta Devi v. Vinod Kumar,  2017 SCC OnLine P&H 2887, decided on 5.09.2017]

Must Watch

SCC Blog Guidelines

Justice BV Nagarathna

call recording evidence in court


Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.