- (1.) Challenge is to the order no.201 dated April 2, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court, Hooghly in Title Suit No.58 of 2000 thereby allowing a petition under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendants.
(2.) The original plaintiff instituted a title suit being Title Suit No.58 of 2000 praying for a decree of declaration and permanent injunction against the opposite parties. In that suit, the opposite parties entered appearance and they are contesting the suit by filing a joint written statement. During pendency of the suit, in the year of 2000, the plaintiff filed an application for local inspection which was allowed by the learned Trial Judge and the learned commissioner appointed in the matter submitted his report which was duly accepted by the learned Trial Judge. Subsequently, the substituted plaintiff and the opposite party nos.11 to 14 filed another application for local inspection which was allowed by the learned Trial Judge and the learned commissioner submitted his report which was also accepted by the learned Court. Thereafter, the defendants/ opposite parties filed a petition for local inspection on some points over which the commissioner appointed earlier submitted their reports. In spite of that, the learned Trial Judge allowed the application for local inspection. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff/petitioner has preferred this revisional application.
(3.) Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.;