( 1 ) THE plaintiff opposite party instituted a suit for ejectment. Before the defendants' appearance, he filed an application for inspection of the disputed premises and also of premises No. 17/1, Lansdowne Terrace, Calcutta. The prayer was allowed by the learned Munsif. Hence this revisional application by the petitioners-defendants.

( 2 ) THE learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the Court is not empowered under the provisions of Order 39, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure to issue a commission for inspection for the purpose of collecting evidence. The cases of Padam Sen v. State of U. P. in and of Institution of Engineers v. Bishnupada in have been cited. It has been contended that the issues were not settled at that stage of the suit. The issue of the commission was thus a premature one. Reference has been made to Rule 9 of Order 26 of the Code. It has been contended that after the issues are settled, if the Court thinks fit, a commission for local investigation could be issued. Since an illegal order was passed, it must be set aside and the revisional application is maintainable.

( 3 ) IT has been argued on behalf o