JUDGMENT Mrs. Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral) - The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 08.11.2012 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mohindergarh, whereby, application filed by the petitioner for appointment of Local Commissioner has been declined. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointment of Local Commissioner is necessary to inspect the spot and find out whether the respondents are in illegal possessions over the land in dispute or not. 3. Admittedly, earlier also, an application was filed by the petitioner for appointment of Local Commissioner which was not pressed and the same was dismissed. Subsequently, another application has been moved in the case when the evidence has already been concluded and despite granting numerous opportunities, the petitioner has failed to lead evidence and this application has been filed just to delay the suit proceedings. 4. Moreover law is well settled that no revision lies against the order passed by learned trial Court refusing to appoint Local Commissioner in its discretion. Hence, discretion exercised by learned trial Court cannot be interfered by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction, either under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Code’) or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. In Pritam Singh and another v. Sunder Lal and others, 1990 (2) PLR 191: 1990 PLJ 418 : 1991(1) RRR 356 : 1990(2) LJR 244 , a Division Bench of this Court by relying upon the decision of this Court rendered in Harvinder Kaur v. Godha Ram, ILR 1979(1) Punjab and Haryana 147 has observed that no revision would lie against an order passed under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code. 6. 6. This Court in subsequent judgment rendered in Sumer Chand Jain v. Vishnu Bhagwan Mangla, [2006(2) Law Herald (P&H) 969] : 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 445: 2006(2) PLR 844: 2006(1) PLJ 59 by placing reliance upon Harvinder Kaur’s case (supra) and Pritam Singh’s case (supra) observed as under:- “In two Division Bench decisions of this Court in Smt.Harvinder Kaur and another v. Godha Ram and another, AIR 1979 Punjab and Haryana 76 and Pritam Singh v. Sunder Lal, 1991 (1) RRR 356 : (1990-2) 98 PLR 191, it has been held that the order refusing to appoint the Local Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. is not revisable under Section 115 C.P.C., therefore, such an order should not be interfered now under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, in Hari Om v. Minish Kumar, (2005- 2) PLR 690, it was observed by this Court that if a revision petition under Section 115 C.P.C. against the impugned order is not maintainable, then by mere change in the head note of the petition, the substance cannot be replaced to wriggle out from the rigors of law which is well settled that no revision petition under Section 115 C.P.C. is maintainable.” 7. On the same point are the decisions of this Court in subsequent judgments rendered in Bant Singh alias Balwant Singh and another v. Raghubir Singh and others, 2008(4) RCR (Civil) 260: 2008 (2) RCR (Rent) 297 and Rajiv Kumar Batra v. Kashmiri Lal Sika, 2010 (6) RCR (Civil) 37 in which also it was held that revision petition either under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or under Section 115 of the Code is not maintainable against an order dismissing application for appointment of Local Commissioner. 8. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order or that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. 9. Petition dismissed.