JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - Plaintiff-Akal Educational Society has filed the revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 19.09.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar thereby, dismissing the application (Annexure P-2) moved by the plaintiff-petitioner for appointment of Local Commissioner for demarcation of the suit property. 2. Case of the plaintiff-petitioner is that the defendant has encroached upon part of the land of the plaintiff as found on demarcation got made at the time of purchase of the suit land by the plaintiff. 3. In application (Annexure P-2), the plaintiff alleged that to connect the portion of plaintiff’s land encroached by the defendant, it is necessary that demarcation of the land of the plaintiff be made by Local Commissioner. The said application has been dismissed by the trial court vide impugned order (Annexure P-3) which is under challenge in this revision petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner whereas, none appeared on behalf of the respondent in spite of service. Respondent-defendant is also ex parte in the trial court. I have also perused the case file. 5. Trial court has dismissed the application of plaintiff*-petitioner for demarcation because it is alleged in the plaint itself that demarcation had been obtained by the plaintiff-petitioner before filing the suit. However, counsel for the plaintiff contended that since at the time of earlier demarcation the defendant was absent , it is necessary to obtain demarcation to prove the encroachment of plaintiff’s land by the defendant by way of reliable evidence. There is considerable merit in the contention. Plaintiff’s prayer for appointment of Local Commissioner cannot be said to be a ploy to collect evidence by the court as observed by the trial court in the impugned order. On the other hand, encroachment of plaintiff’s land by defendant can be established only by way of demarcation. It is, therefore, necessary to appoint local commissioner for demarcation. Impugned order of the trial court is, thus, perverse and illegal and suffers from jurisdictional errors because the trial court refused to exercise jurisdiction which vested in it to appoint Local Commissioner. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order (Annexure P-3) passed by the trial court is set aside. Impugned order of the trial court is, thus, perverse and illegal and suffers from jurisdictional errors because the trial court refused to exercise jurisdiction which vested in it to appoint Local Commissioner. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order (Annexure P-3) passed by the trial court is set aside. Application (Annexure P-2) moved by the plaintiff for appointment of Local Commissioner for demarcation of the suit land is allowed. The trial court shall appoint suitable person as Local Commissioner for doing the needful. ------------------