-
by sayum
13 March 2026 10:26 AM
“An order refusing to appoint a Local Commissioner neither adjudicates rights nor decides any issue — hence not revisable,” In a clear reaffirmation of settled procedural law, the Punjab and Haryana High Court reiterated that no revision lies under Article 227 of the Constitution against an order refusing to appoint a Local Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as such an order does not determine any rights of the parties or decide any issue in the suit.
Justice Vikas Bahl held that “appointment of a Local Commissioner is entirely discretionary, and no vested right accrues to any party for seeking such appointment.”
The petitioner, conceding the legal position in light of binding precedents, sought permission to withdraw the revision petition with liberty to lead relevant evidence during trial. The Court accordingly dismissed the revision as withdrawn, but clarified the legal landscape in the process.
"Appointment of Commissioner is Not a Right — It Is an Enabling Provision, Not an Entitlement"
While referring to Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, the Court underlined the discretionary nature of the provision, noting:
“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.”
The High Court further noted that the order under challenge, being one of refusal to appoint a Commissioner, does not affect the substantive rights of any party, and hence is not revisable under supervisory jurisdiction either.
“Refusing a Local Commissioner Doesn’t Decide Rights — Hence, Not Revisable”
Justice Bahl referred extensively to the Division Bench ruling in Pritam Singh v. Sunder Lal [1990 (2) PLR 191], a binding precedent which remains the touchstone for such matters. The ruling had categorically held:
“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 Court reaffirmed that this position was followed in subsequent judgments including:
In Harchand, the High Court had once again stated that “no revision would be maintainable against an order dismissing an application for appointment of a Local Commissioner”, and that such orders have no bearing on the rights or legal entitlements of parties.
“Supervisory Jurisdiction Under Article 227 Is Not a Backdoor for Circumventing Settled Law”
The Court also cautioned against misusing Article 227 to revisit interlocutory orders that are non-revisable, emphasising that supervisory powers cannot be used to override or bypass clear limitations set by judicial precedent.
“Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution is not meant to circumvent settled law on maintainability of revisions,” Justice Bahl noted while observing that no illegality or perversity was found in the impugned order.
Petitioner Permitted to Lead Evidence During Trial
Recognising the petitioner’s request to withdraw the revision petition in view of the legal position, the Court allowed the same with a specific liberty:
“Petitioner is permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to lead relevant evidence at the time of her evidence being led.”
With this, the revision petition stood dismissed as withdrawn.
A Procedural Attempt Rightly Shut Down — Courts Cannot Be Pressured to Appoint Commissioners at Will
This decision reaffirms a fundamental principle of civil procedure — no party has an enforceable right to insist on appointment of a Local Commissioner. That discretion lies squarely with the Court, guided by necessity and judicial wisdom, not by the convenience or strategy of litigants.
The ruling once again underlines that supervisory jurisdiction is not an appellate remedy in disguise, and cannot be invoked to challenge orders that neither affect rights nor decide issues.
Justice Bahl’s ruling is consistent with the judicial discipline expected under Article 227 and continues the High Court’s commitment to maintain procedural clarity in civil litigation.
Date of Decision: January 8, 2026
