' This revision petition is directed against an interlocutory order dated 10-3-1992 passed by the learned Additional Civil' Judge, Lakki, whereby on the application of the plaintiff/respondent a Local Commission was appointed to go to the spot and to ascertain as to whether the suit land is 'Banjar Qadeem' or Banjar Jadeed' or cultivable.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 4-5-1991 Saiful Malook, respondent filed an application under section 12(2), P.P.C. To declare the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Lakki granted in favour of the petitioners in Suit No,13/1 decided on 24-2-1990 titled as Mandullah Khan v. Nawaz Khan, being the result of misrepresentation and collusion between the parties, as of no legal effect upon hit rights.
3. The respondents in compliance with the notices issued to them attended the Court, submitted written reply and the evidence of the Patwari and that of the applicant was recorded. Meanwhile the respondents submitted an. Application for issuance of a Commission, on which the learned Trial Court passed the impugned order. For the issuance of the Commission with the direction: "He is directed to go to the spot and to ascertain as the suit land is either Banjar Qadeem or Banjar Jadeed or cultivable. He has to mention the condition of the suit land as to whether it is rainy or irrigated. He has also to show as to how much area has been cultivated, if any, by the defendant or by the plaintiff. He is also to draw the map of the suit land."
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record with their assistance..
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the purposes for which the Commissioner has been appointed could be ascertained from the Revenue Record placed on file and there is no need' of such an exercise by the Trial Court. However, by going through the impugned order, the various points mentioned in the order, to be determined by the Commission, could not be available from the Revenue Record with regard to certain matters and the learned Trial Court probably was of the opinion that for explaining the points mentioned therein, were not available on the record and his this opinion' is correct as the evidence produced by the parties is deficient in this respect.
Furthermore, the petitioner also could not agitate in the revision petition as he was a consenting party to the appointment of the Commissioner as the very opening words of the impugned order are: "Parties with their counsel present. Counsel for the defendant did not object over the application of the plaintiff and I also deem it fit to appoint a Local Commissioner......................... "
The proceedings of the Commissioner are not the conclusive evidence but can be taken as a piece of evidence and the report is subject to further scrutiny by affording opportunities to the parties to raise objection in the report of the Commission and even to examine or cross-examine the Commissioner in the Court with regard to the proceedings of the Commission and his report. So, it is not proper to debar the Trial Court to do something provided under the law for arriving at a proper conclusion rather it would be improper to do otherwise.
' In the result, this revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Costs to follow the events.
Revision .