D/L- 17 11/09/2026 Ct. No.- 6 Aritra C.O. 3108 of 2026 Subir Hazra & Anr. Vs. Biswanath Mukherjee & Ors. Mr. Sounak Mandal Mr. Subhadeep Banerjee Ms. Shreya Banerjee ….for the petitioners Mr. Supratim Dhar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Dulal Chanda Mr. Aritra Ghosh ….for the opposite parties This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against an order dated September 2, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), 7th Court at Howrah in Title Suit No.755 of 2026. By the order impugned the application under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure stood allowed. Mr. Mandal, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the learned trial judge appointed a Commissioner for holding inspection on the points which are beyond the scope of the application under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. Mandal submits that the application under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed with an object of fishing out evidence which is not permissible. Mr. Dhar, learned senior advocate appearing for the opposite parties submits that the schedule of the property as mentioned in the plaint is very confusing. He submits 2 that in order to have a clear picture before the Court, the learned trial judge allowed the prayer for local inspection. By referring to the site plan for the sale deed, which is annexed at page 30 of the civil revisional application, Mr. Dhar submits that the Mandir and other prominent structures have been indicated in the site plan. He, therefore, submits that the points on which the learned trial judge allowed the local inspection cannot be said to be beyond the scope of the application. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials placed. The petitioners filed a suit for declaration that the petitioners are the joint owners of ‘A’ and ‘C’ schedule property and have a right to use and enjoy the ‘B’ schedule mentioned property i.e. the common passage on the strength of the registered sale deed no.2331 of 2020 and for a further declaration that ‘C’ schedule mentioned property is an integral part of ‘A’ schedule mentioned property. After going through the schedule of the plaint this Court finds that ‘A’ schedule mentioned property and the ‘B’ schedule mentioned property have been described with specific boundaries. However, the ‘C’ schedule property is stated to be a piece and parcel of a street and part and front side i.e. northern side of ‘A’ schedule mentioned property which is 5 ft. in width and 15 ft. in length which is situated at 46/1/3, Dharanidhar Mallick Lane, under Police Station-Bantra in the District of Howrah. 3 From the site plan of the sale deed which is annexed at page 30 of the civil revisional application this Court finds that the property which was the subject matter of the sale deed was indicated with Red Border. On northern side of the Red Border portion there is a common passage (“L Shaped”). The measurement of one portion of the “L Shaped” common passage is stated to be of 4 ft. while the measurement of the other portion of the common passage of that “L Shaped” has not been mentioned. In course of argument of the civil revisional application Mr. Mandal, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would strenuously contend that the dotted portion marked as “Projection Above” is the ‘C’ schedule property which is inside the Red Border portion. As observed hereinbefore that the boundaries of ‘C’ schedule property has not been mentioned. The expression “Projection Above” is a confusing expression used in the site plan. As to whether the ‘C’ schedule is a part which has been indicated in the site plan as “Projection Above” has not been mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. The learned trial judge rightly observed that the Court is empowered to appoint a local Advocate Commissioner for conducting the local inspection to elucidate any matter in dispute and the object of local inspection is to assist the Court. The learned trial judge further noted that an existing physical structure is the subject matter of an interim injunction application and there is a dispute with 4 regard to its physical location. The learned trial judge was of the view that an inspection of the existing state of affairs may assist the Court in understanding the subject matter of the suit. The learned trial judge was right in holding that the inspection of the suit property as to the exact location of schedule ‘A’ and schedule ‘B’ is necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the dispute between the parties. However, this Court finds substance in the argument of Mr. Mandal that certain points beyond the scope of the application under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed by the learned trial judge. The existence, nature and physical condition of the Mandir and other prominent structures were not the subject matter of the application as the points for local inspection are silent in that regard. The order impugned stands modified by directing that the local inspection shall be held only in respect of the points for local inspection which has been mentioned in the schedule of the application under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. At this stage, Mr. Dhar, learned senior advocate appearing for the opposite parties submits that in the meantime the local inspection has already been conducted in the presence of the respective parties and the report has already been submitted before the learned trial judge. The learned trial judge shall consider the said report in the light of the observations made hereinbefore. 5 With the aforesaid observations and directions, CO 3108 of 2026 stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)