Detailed Description Of Concealment Not Mandatory Under Section 27 Evidence Act: Bombay High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Child Is Not A Pawn To Prove Mother's Adultery: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Husband's DNA Test Petition In Desertion Divorce Case Shareholder Ratification Cannot Cure Fraud Under SEBI's PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Restores Rs. 70 Lakh Penalty on Company When High Court Judges Themselves Disagree on the Answer, Can a Law Graduate Be Penalised for Getting It Wrong? Supreme Court Says No Superficial Burns Don't Mean Silence: Supreme Court Explains Why 80-90% Burn Victim Could Still Make a Valid Dying Declaration Daughter's Eyewitness Account, Dying Declaration Seal Husband's Fate: Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence for Wife-Burning Murder Supreme Court Rejects Rs. 106 Crore Compensation Claim; Directs SECL to Supply Coal to Prakash Industries at 2014 or 2019 Prices for Wrongfully Suspended Period Section 319 CrPC | Trial Court Cannot Conduct Mini Trial While Deciding Application to Summon Additional Accused: Supreme Court Accused Can't Be Left Without Documents To Defend: Calcutta High Court Directs Adjudicating Authority To First Decide Whether Complete 'Relied Upon Documents' Were Served In PMLA Proceedings Husband Who Took Voluntary Retirement at 47 Cannot Escape Maintenance Duty: Delhi High Court Upholds ₹10,000/Month to Wife and Daughter Cannot Claim Monopoly Over a Deity's Name: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Trademark Injunction Against 'Kshetrapal Construction' Eviction Appeal Cannot Require Actual Surrender Of Possession, Symbolic Possession Sufficient: J&K High Court Amendment Introducing Time-Barred Relief And Changing Nature Of Suit Cannot Be Allowed: Karnataka High Court Counter Claim Is An Independent Suit: MP High Court Rules Properties Beyond Territorial Jurisdiction Cannot Be Dragged Into Counter Claim Co-Sharer Cannot Be Bound By Passage Carved Out Without His Consent: Punjab & Haryana High Court Modifies Concurrent Decrees ‘Prima Facie True’ Is Enough to Deny Liberty: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Bail in Babbar Khalsa Terror Conspiracy Case High Court Cannot Quash FIR for Forgery When Handwriting Expert's Report Is Still Awaited: Supreme Court Supreme Court Calls for Paternity Leave Law, Says Father's Absence in Child's Early Years Leaves a "Quiet Cost" That Lasts a Lifetime Three-Month Age Cap for Adoptive Mothers' Maternity Benefit Struck Down: Supreme Court Reads Down Section 60(4) of Social Security Code Bank Cannot Rely on Charter Party Agreement to Justify Remittance Contrary to Customer's Instructions: Supreme Court 19 Candidates Linked to Accused, Papers of Five Subjects Leaked: Allahabad High Court Upholds Cancellation of UP Assistant Professor Exam Result

It is for the plaintiff-petitioner to prove his case and he cannot take aid of the Court agency for creating evidence for him – Punjab and Haryana HC Dismisses Revision for Appointment of Local Commissioner

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Alka Sarin, dismissed a revision petition under Article 227 challenging the trial court’s decision to not appoint a Local Commissioner for demarcating a disputed property in Bhiwani. The court upheld the trial court’s order emphasizing that the petitioner must prove their case independently without court assistance in gathering evidence.

The revision petition arose from a dispute where the Samaj Vikash Paryatan Kendra (Petitioner) sought a declaration of ownership and a permanent injunction against Ajit Kumar & Anr. (Respondents), claiming possession of certain land. During the suit, an application was filed under Order XXVI, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking a Local Commissioner to report on the land’s status, which the trial court dismissed.

Judicial Discretion and Evidentiary Principles: The court reiterated that the appointment of a Local Commissioner is discretionary. Citing precedents, the judgment highlighted, “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.”

Responsibility of Proof: Justice Sarin underscored the petitioner’s responsibility to substantiate its claims independently. “The plaintiff-petitioner is seeking appointment of a Local Commissioner for demarcation of the land whereas the entire case of the plaintiff-petitioner in his plaint is for declaration to the effect that he is the owner in possession of the land in dispute,” Justice Sarin noted, emphasizing that the court cannot assist in collecting evidence.

The court found no merit in the revision petition, thus affirming the trial court’s decision. Justice Sarin concluded, “In view of the above, I do not find any merits in the present revision petition which is accordingly dismissed.”

This judgment reinforces the principle that litigants must rely on the strength of their own evidence and cannot seek judicial intervention to aid their evidence collection in civil disputes.

Date of Decision: May 9, 2024

Samaj Vikash Paryatan Kendra v. Ajit Kumar & Anr.

Latest Legal News