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
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.
Legal Framework and Factual Background
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.
Issues and Court’s Observations
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.
Decision and Conclusion
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.
