Raj Kumar Singh v. Pritam Singh And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.6447 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision.27.09.2016 Raj Kumar Singh .......Petitioner Vs Pritam Singh and others ........Respondents

Present:

Mr. S.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL -.- AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the application for appointment of Local Commissioner which was moved before the trial Court in a suit for permanent injunction and during the pendency of the suit, the respondents are stated to have forcibly and illegally encroached upon the land. In this aspect of the matter, the application under Order 26 Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, has been moved which was dismissed on the premise that Local Commissioner cannot be appointed to create evidence for the parties and Court cannot delegate its powers to Local Commissioner.

In view of the aforesaid fact, the present revision petition and as well as the application moved under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC are ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to move an appropriate application at an appropriate stage until and unless the plaintiff show some positive evidence on encroachment but not at the drop of the hat. (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE September 27, 2016 Pankaj* Whether reasoned/speaking Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.09.