1. This batch of fifteen connected civil revisions by the defendants are against a common order of remand dated 4-7-1988 of learned District Judge, Chakwal. Case of plaintiff Fauji Foundation Hospital, Kalar Kahar, in short, is that land in suit belonged to them and several defendants by committing trespass upon their land had taken its possession. Land was got demarcated before the suits by a Girdawar who found some encroachments on the plaintiff's land. On the basis of this report, plaintiff instituted as many as fifteen civil suits against defendants to recover possession of the pieces of lands alleged to have been encroached upon by them. Defendants resisted the suits on number of pleas. These are reflected in number of issues framed by the trial Court. By judgment dated 8-11-1987, suits were dismissed. .t was found that the plaintiff was owner of the land in suit; that Lt.-Col. Ghaus Mohammad Malik had authority to institute suits; that the suits were maintainable; that the suits did not suffer from defect of misjoinder of parties or causes of action and that the alleged encroachments were not proved. The decision of the learned trial Court was assailed before learned District Judge, Chakwal in separate appeals. As said above, appeals were allowed and the suits were remanded to the trial Court "with a direction to appoint a Local Commissioner holding a rank not less than a Naib-Tehsildar for demarcation of the suit land and to submit hi, report about the encroachment, if any. Direction be issued to him that he will prepare his report in accordance with the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner as incorporated in the High Court Rules and Orders, Vol. 1, Chapter 1, Part-M. After the report of the Local Commissioner the learned trial Court shall proceed with the case and adjudicate upon it in accordance with law" . With this part of the order, defendants are aggrieved of. It is contended on their behalf that evidence on record was sufficient for decision of all the appeals and no occasion existed or a proper cause was shown for ordering remand of the cases for the denovo.Trial. Mian Inamul Haque relied on some decisions to content that the remand cannot be ordered lightly and in routine to enable a defaulter litigant to fill in gaps in his case by producing fresh material. So far as this argument which merely states a general statement of law, no dispute can be raised to its correctness. There is no difficulty in enunciating a principle of law but difficulty arises in its actual application to the facts of a particular case. In all these suits, two material points arose for determination. First point was about the ownership of the plaintiff and second point was as to whether the allegations existing in the plaints in regard to encroachments were true and the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of the encroached upon pieces of land. As to the first point, plaintiff had asserted that land in suit was acquired for the hospital and after acquisition, its ownership vested in the plaintiff. In regard to the second point, plaintiff had relied on the oral testimony of its Administrative Officer P.W-1, demarcation report of Girdawar Ext.P-1 and encroachment map Ext.P-3. Copy of Jamabandi was filed to prove ownership of the land.
2. Defendants merely relied upon oral evidence to rebut the allegations of encroachments. There were obvious defects in the demarcation report Ext.P-1 and encroachment plan Ext.P-3. These documents were insufficient to prove encroachments. Firstly, author of the report did not enter witness box to establish its correctness. Secondly, original demarcations file was missing and only certified copies of demarcation report and encroachment map prepared in its result were tendered in evidence Thirdly report did not conform to the requirements of law regulating demarcation proceedings as laid down in the Rules and Orders of the High Court Chapter 1-M.
3. Fourthly, it is in evidence that Girdawar executed measurements in absence of the defendants.
4. Therefore, it was not possible for the Courts to rely on this piece of evidence to hol(i encroachments proved against the defendants for giving decrees for possession to the plaintiff. In the very nature of things, oral evidence in cases of boundary disputes and disputes about the identity of lands is of not much assistance. Therefore, for satisfactory decision of such like disputes, proper and appropriate course for the Court is to order local investigation by appointment of a Local Commissioner under Order XXVI, Civil Procedure Code. No doubt, the Court has' a discretion to order local investigation or not. It is not bound to order it in all cases. However, in cases relating to boundary disputes and disputes regarding identity of land/property, proper exercise of discretion is to order local investigation by a Local Commissioner having some experience in the field of demarcation. It is well-settled that the object of local investigation is not so much to collect evidence which can be taken in Court but real purpose is to obtain evidence which from its very peculiar nature can only be had at the spot. Under Order 26, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code when the Court deem a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose o elucidating any matter in dispute or for ascertaining any other matte mentioned in the said rule, a Commissioner for the required purpose is deputed under the aforesaid rule of law. The object of loca investigation is to obtain evidence which from its peculiar nature can best be had from the spot itself. Such evidence enables the Court properly and correctly understand and assess the evidence on record. It clarifies and explains any point which is left doubtful on the evidence on record. In view of the rival averments made by the parties and the state of evidence on record, local investigation by a Commissioner was absolutely necessary in these cases. After having found faults with the demarcation report-Ext.Pl, appellant Court was justified to order local investigation by a Local Commissioner appointed for the required purpose. Even in the adversary system where the parties have to prove or disprove the rival claims set up against each other, role of the Court to reach truth and to do justice cannot at all be minimized. Power of the appellate Court to appoint a Local Commissioner was not disputed. It was also not denied that the appellate Court in appropriate circumstances could also admit additional evidence which in these cases could be the evidence of a Local Commissioner deputed to discover encroachments on the spot. On review of the evidence and having regard to the rights of the parties involved, it was a proper exercise of jurisdiction of the part of learned appellate Court to order local investigation. Of course, decision of the cases without the additional material was possible but for a proper and satisfactory decision, remand was more near the cause of justice. Without being disrespectful, I think learned trial Court would have acted properly if it had chosen to appoint a Local Commissioner for,, resolving the dispute in regard to encroachments. This course would have clearly obviated the expense and time consumed in further litigation and also could have assisted the expeditious decision of the whole controversy. As the learned appellate Court has adopted correct course, I do not propose to interfere. In view of the aforestated reasons, civil revisions do not qualify for interference. These fail and are dismissed in limine.
5. Learned trial Judge shall endeavour to expedite. The hearing of the suits and complete their trials expeditiously.