Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 366 (PNJ)

Surinder Kaur v. Rawinder Singh

2013-03-19

M.JEYAPAUL

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. M. Jeyapaul, J. (Oral) - In a suit for bare injunction which was filed way-back on 8.1.2007, the plaintiff moved an application for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner at a stage when the matter was posted for rebuttal and arguments. 2. The trial Court dismissed the said application on two grounds. One, there has been a lapse on the part of the plaintiff in moving an application for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner in time. Secondly, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to collect evidence in the garb of appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner, more especially in a suit for bare injunction. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that during the pendency of the suit some change had been made in the street which is the subject matter of the suit. The Electricity Department also had installed some pillars for supply of electricity. Therefore, it is his submission that the changes made on the disputed property will have to be brought to the notice of the Court by way of appointment of an Advocate- Commissioner. It is his further submission that the delay, if any, cannot be the sole ground to reject the application filed for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner. 4. I find that there is no merit in the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. The suit has been filed as early as on 8.1.2007. For about 6 long years the matter has been pending before the trial Court and infact the case has reached the stage of rebuttal and arguments. The changes made on the street which is the subject matter of the dispute does not at all go to the root of the case. If the plaintiff establishes that there has been a street he is entitled to an order of injunction as prayed for by him. Therefore, to note down the changes made in the street, the question of appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner, in my considered view, falls out of the scope of the relief sought in the suit. The plaintiff who filed a suit for bare injunction knows his strength and weakness in the case. He should have knocked at the doors of the trial Court at the earliest point of time seeking appointment of Advocate- Commissioner. The plaintiff who filed a suit for bare injunction knows his strength and weakness in the case. He should have knocked at the doors of the trial Court at the earliest point of time seeking appointment of Advocate- Commissioner. But, in my considered view, in a suit for bare injunction, the Court should discourage filing of an application for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner as the scope of such a suit is very limited. In other words, the Court should not aid the parties to collect evidence, more especially in a suit for bare injunction. 5. I went through the decision in Jagdish Chand vs. Darshan Singh, 2001(4) RCR (Civil) 725 cited by learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. That was not a case where the application for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner was sought. It was a case where the Revenue Authorities appointed Kanungo as Commissioner to inspect the property concerned and submit a report. This Court held therein that an opportunity will have to be given to the party concerned to mark the report submitted by the said Kanungo who was appointed as Local Commissioner by the Revenue Authority. The aforesaid decision is factually distinguishable. 6. I find that there is no merit in the revision petition. For the aforesaid reasons, the revision stands dismissed.