Prasenjit Mandal, J.

1. CHALLENGE is to the Order No.45 dated January 3, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 7th Court, Howrah in Title Suit No.104 of 2002 thereby dismissing an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the C.P.C. filed by the petitioner.

2. THE short fact is that the plaintiffs filed a suit being Title Suit No.104 of 2002 against the defendant / opposite party praying for declaration of title, permanent injunction and other reliefs. THE defendant is contesting the said suit and the suit was at the stage of peremptory hearing. At that time, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the C.P.C. and the said application for local investigation was rejected on contest by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record I find that the learned Trial judge has committed errors of law in rejecting the application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the C.P.C. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that they purchased 4 decimals of land as described in t