Court No. 6 (265719) 04.08.2026 (AD 26) (S. Banerjee) CO 2476 of 2026 Rajendra Bagaria & Anr. Vs. Dhiraj Kumar Baid & Ors. Mr. Partha Ganguly Mr. Hamidul Haque …for the petitioners This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against an order being no. 50 dated May 18, 2026 passed by the learned Judge, 12th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 260 of 2014. By the order impugned, the application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code stood rejected. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the application for local inspection was filed for appointment of a Commissioner to hold local inspection and to submit a report as to whether the suit property is one single, inseparable, indivisible and continuous building or whether Schedule A and B properties are physically distinct properties. The instant suit is a suit for partition and the preliminary decree is yet to be passed in such suit. 2 While passing a preliminary decree the shares of the parties will only be declared and it is only at the stage of final decree proceeding that the property shall be divided by metes and bounds. Learned trial judge was right in holding that determination of the fact as to whether Schedule A and B properties are physically distinct properties or are one single, inseparable, indivisible and continuous building, is not necessary at the time of passing the preliminary decree. Learned trial judge was right in rejecting the application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order impugned and, accordingly, this civil revision application stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)