MALAY KUMAR BASU, J. - (1.) This revisional application is directed against the order No. 127 dated 23.4.1998 passed by the Id. Assistant District Judge. 1st Court, Alipur in Title Suit No. 8 of 1989. By this order the Id. Judge dismissed a petition dated 17.4.1996 filed by the defendant (the present revisional applicant) "for an order allowing local inspection in respect of a flat in the first floor of Premises No. 7C, Belvedere Road in order to take measurement and on other relevant features regarding plaintiffs accommodation in that flat. By an earlier application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the C. P. C. the plaintiff of the suit (the present O. Ps.) prayed for an order directing local inspection to be held of the ground floor of that premises No. 7C, Belvedere Road and that application of the plaintiff was allowed and an Advocate-Commissioner had been appointed to hold such local inspection of the said premises as per the points specified in the Writ of local inspection. It was the case of the defendant while filing this said application that at the time of holding the said local inspection as prayed for by the plaintiff the Id. Advocate-Commissioner pleaded his inability to take measurement of the rooms of the first floor of that house on the plea that such a point was not noted in the Writ of Commission. According to the defendant-petitioner, such an inspection being necessary for the purpose of bringing the real picture regarding accommodation of both the parties, his prayer ought to have been allowed by the court below and a local inspection in that line ought to have been held by the Commissioner for the purpose of enabling the court to have all the cards on the table for determining the real point in controversy between the parties.
(2.) The court below rejected this prayer of the defendant on the ground that when the plaintiffs' prayer for local inspection was being heard and considered, the defendant never made any whisper about any such necessity and remained totally silent and such a point having not been mentioned in the Writ of Commission the Id. Commissioner also was not in a position to hold any inspection in that line and even thereafter when the Id. Commissioner has submitted his report after his local inspection was over, the defendant did not raise any objection against the same and after the passage of a longtime he has come with such a prayer and from this his motive can be clearly gauged, namely, to get the hearing of the matter delayed as far as possible. According to the Id. Trial Judge this was nothing but a clever tactic of the defendant for deferring the hearing of the main suit and harassing the plaintiff-landlord and further he also found the petition to be vague and unjustified and in view of all these reasons he rejected the petition.
(3.) Being aggrieved by this order the defendant has preferred this revisional application challenging that order as erroneous and illegal. According to him the Id. Judge has acted with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction and therefore, according to the applicant, that order of the Trial Judge should be set aside.;