JUDGMENT : Prasenjit Biswas, J. 1. The present revisional application is directed against a portion of the order dated 1st July, 2011 in connection with Title Suit No. 208 of 2011 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Haldia. By passing the impugned order application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed. 2. The plaintiffs/opposite parties filed a suit in respect of the suit property for declaration of title and permanent injunction. In that suit an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed at the behest of the plaintiffs and ex-parte ad interim order in form of status quo as regards nature, character and possession in respect of ‘Ka’ scheduled property as mentioned in the plaint was passed. The plaintiffs also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer for appointment of commissioner for inspection of the suit property which was allowed by the Trial Court without serving a notice to the other side. 3. Learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the present petitioner received a notice in or around the 2nd week of July, 2012 from which he came to know that an order of status quo had been passed on an application filed by the plaintiffs/opposite parties (herein). It is further submitted by the learned Counsel that the present petitioner came to learn that another application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been filed by the plaintiffs and the said application was allowed by the learned Trial Court and a commissioner had been appointed who carried out the inspection work and filed a report. 4. Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code empowers the Court to pass an order for inspection of the property which is the subject matter of the suit or as to which any question may arise on an application made by any of the parties to the suit. 5. 4. Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code empowers the Court to pass an order for inspection of the property which is the subject matter of the suit or as to which any question may arise on an application made by any of the parties to the suit. 5. Sub-clause 3 of Order 39 Rule 8 of the Code entails that:- “Before making an order under Rule 6 or 7 on an application made for the purpose, the Court shall, except where it appears that the object of making such order would be defeated by the delay, direct notice thereof to be given to the opposite party” 6. Clause 3 of Order 39 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure was introduced and incorporated after amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure. The amendment as it stands starts with a prefix that before making an order under Rule 6 or 7 when it appears that an object of making such order would be defeated by delay, the Court can issue such ex-parte interim order. The added sub-Rule (3) of the Order 8, Rule 39 makes the position clear limiting the power of the Court to make an ex-parte order where it appears to the Court that object of making the order would be defeated by delay by directing notice. 7. The impugned order was passed ex-parte by the Trial Court under Order 39 Rule 7 and the same has been completed in derogation of the right of the present petitioner to notice. 8. It is profitable to quote the observation of this Court in case of Electrosteel Castings Ltd Vs. Apurba Kumar Dewan & Ors. reported in 1995(2) CLJ page 66 where this Court had occasioned to deal with the self same issue. The extracts of which are quoted hereunder: “5. Another point which has been attempted to be canvassed before this Court is about maintainability of the revision arising out of an order passed in Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the same has been attempted to be set at rest by Mr. Mukherjee by making reference to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Institution of Engineers v. Bishnupada Bag. Mukherjee by making reference to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Institution of Engineers v. Bishnupada Bag. The other points agitated by the respective parties pale into insignificance as according to the considered view of this Court after amendment was introduced in 1976 with regard to Order 39 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no ex parte order is capable of being passed without substantive compliance of Clause (3) of Order 39 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly this Court feels it unnecessary to go in for discussion on other points which may be of academic interest but cannot have any germane significance on the controversy as the order impugned is absolutely vitiated by the mischief of jurisdictional infirmity and the learned Munsif did not pass the order in accordance with the present provision of Order 39 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure after the same was introduced by amendment.” 9. The aforesaid principle is reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Fosie Chung Cheneova Vs. Mama Bendra Chander Roy And Other reported in AIR 1998 Calcutta 84 in the following words:- “7.….The law clearly enjoined upon the court below and cast a duty upon it to issue notice to a defendant before it would decide the question relating to the appointment of the commissioner. The only exception was to be found in Order 39 Rule 8 CPC. Even the plaintiffs/respondents did not plead in their application or make out any case by or with the help of any material as to why an exception to Order 39 Rule 8 be made in this case. Unfortunately the court below itself did not record any reason to say or suggest as to why the issuance of notice was dispensed within this case. Thus a fate accompli was created whereby a report of a commissioner came to be brought before the court which created some sort of evidence about the possession of the plaintiffs over the disputed property. The owners of the property had no occasion or opportunity or even knowledge about any such happening. They were not associated in any manner with the execution of the commission. All this was done behind their back. The owners of the property had no occasion or opportunity or even knowledge about any such happening. They were not associated in any manner with the execution of the commission. All this was done behind their back. Even the Commissioner did not choose or deem it fit or proper to issue any notice to the defendants about his intention to execute the commission or to inspect property in question…..” 10. It appears from the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court that it has not recorded any reason relating to urgency that if notice is directed to be served the purpose would be defeated by the delay. Accordingly, this Court finds that the Trial Court has misdirected itself in exercising of jurisdiction by passing the ex-parte order in absence of the affected party by depriving him of a right to notice. The revisionist/petitioner may suffer if he is deprive of his right of notice. 11. The power of judicial interpretation of legislative provision is a fundamental which must be exercised circumspectly regard being had to the legislative intent and the provision of Order 39 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure is required to be interpreted keeping in view of the scheme appearing from the language of the amendment read in its proper perspective so that the same would not be made nugatory. The Court can grant an ex-parte order only in exceptional case when the Court finds by formation of its opinion that any delay would defeat the purpose of the said petition for local inspection. 12. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court passed on an application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not sustainable under the eye of law. 13. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 1st July, 2011 on an application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure is hereby set aside. 14. The learned Trial Court is hereby directed to hear out the aforesaid application afresh and shall see that the same is to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible preferably within 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order without giving unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. 15. 14. The learned Trial Court is hereby directed to hear out the aforesaid application afresh and shall see that the same is to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible preferably within 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order without giving unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. 15. Liberty is hereby given to the present petitioner to file written objection against the said application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure within 2 weeks from date and reply if any, be filed within 3 days thereafter. 16. Accordingly, C.O. being no. 1424 of 2012 is hereby allowed and disposed of. 17. There will be no order as to costs. 18. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on payment of requisite fees.