Devi Sarup and Others vs Smt. Veena Nirwani and Others

Sat Pal, J.—This case was listed for arguments on 17.12.1997. The learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out on that date that in view of the law laid down by two Division Benches of this court, the revision petition itself was not, maintainable. However, on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, case was adjourned for today.

Today the case was called out for arguments at about 11.15 AM. but none appeared on behalf of the parties. Case has again been called out at 2.00 P.M. But none is present on behalf of the parties. In view of these facts I proceed to dispose of the matter.

This petition has been preferred against the order dated 17.4.1997 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jagadhari. By this order the learned Additional District Judge appointed Sh. Jagdish Ram, Range Officer, Jagadhri as Local Commissioner and directed him to visit the spot and report about the trees standing in the suit land as well as the number and diameter or girth of stumps trees which have been cut and removed from the suit land. In Harvinder Kaur v. Godha Ram 1979 P.L.J. 562 a Division Bench of this Court has held that the revision petition u/s 115 CPC is not maintainable against an order refusing to appoint a local commissioner. The law laid down in this judgment was reiterated by another Divsion Bench of this Court in Pritam Singh and Another Vs. Sunder Lal and Others, In view of the law laid down by two Division bench of this Court, I am of the opinion that this revision petition is not maintainable. Accordingly the petition is dismissed