Trial Courts Must Award Just Compensation In POCSO Cases Beyond Fine Amounts; Interim Payment No Reason To Deny Final Relief: Madras High Court Section 482 CrPC Power Not For Conducting 'Mini-Trial'; Disputed Facts Must Be Adjudicated At Trial: Allahabad High Court Right To Walk On Demarcated Footpaths Is A Fundamental Right; Municipal Authorities Under Enforceable Duty To Provide Pedestrian Infrastructure: Supreme Court Right To Walk Is A Fundamental Right Under Articles 19(1)(d) & 21; Priority Over Motorised Vehicles: Supreme Court Municipal Commissioner Is Disciplinary Authority For All Employees Post-1993 Amendment; Existing Regulations Can't Fetter Statutory Power: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Force Plaintiff To Accept Monetary Compensation Instead Of Removal Of Encroachment Without Prayer: Supreme Court Recruitment Merit Is Not A Vested Right; Public Interest Justifies Disclosing Marks Of Candidates Outside Selection Zone: Supreme Court Special Police Establishment Not An 'Intelligence & Security Organisation', State Cannot Exempt It From RTI Act: Supreme Court Medical Practitioner Not Negligent Merely Because Result Was A Failure If Procedure Adopted Was Acceptable To Medical Science: Calcutta High Court Long Service Cannot Be Denied Regularization On Mere Technicalities If Appointment Wasn't Illegal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejection Of Nomination Paper Can Only Be Challenged Through Election Petition; Article 329(b) Bars Writ Jurisdiction: Supreme Court NI Act | Benefit Of Presumptions Under Sections 118 & 139 Not Available If Complainant Lacks Direct Knowledge Of Transaction: Kerala High Court Landowners Entitled To Solatium Under National Highways Act; Failure To Grant Is Ground To Challenge Award Under Section 34: MP High Court Transfer Policy Only Broad Guideline, Not Enforceable Under Article 226/227 In Absence Of Mala Fides: Rajasthan High Court

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