An order for local inspection under Order 39 Rule 7 CPC is not for the purpose of collecting evidence, but to determine the nature and character of the suit premises and the number of locks on the shutter.

1. By consent of the parties, let this matter be treated as on day's list as 'Motion'.

2. Heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.

3. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India primarily directed against an order, being Order No.3 dated 27th September, 2004, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court at Asansol in Title Suit No. 177 of 2004.

4. The order impugned has been passed by the learned Court below in an application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 7 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

5. From the records it appears that the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 herein, instituted a suit, being Title Suit No. 177 of 2004, before the learned Court below inter alia praying for the following reliefs:

a) For a decree of declaration that the plaintiffs are tenant under the defendants in respect of the suit premises in schedule below.

b) For a decree of mandatory injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiffs directing the defendants to open and remove their locks from the door of the suit premises and in default the plaintiffs may be permitted to break and remove the locks of the defendants.

c) For a decree of permanent injunction be passed restraining the defendants from disturbing the plaintiffs in any way in course of running their business in and from the suit premises hereto.

6. In paragraphs 11 and 12 of the plaint following statements have been made:

Paragraph 11.-That it is painful to the plaintiffs that on 18.09.04 at night when the plaintiffs left the suit premises after keeping the suit premises under lock and key then the defendants most illegally locked the door of the suit premises by his, own locks and on the next day morning La. on 19.09.04 when the plaintiff's again went to the suit premises then saw that the shop room is locked by some other locks in addition to their locks and on enquiry the defendants stated the plaintiffs that they have locked the door and the plaintiffs shall not be allowed to enter into the shop room and run their business as tenant. It is further to be mentioned here that on 18.09.04 in the evening very tactfully the defendants with the consent of the plaintiffs kept an old scooter inside the suit room with the plea that tomorrow morning we shall bring out the scooter.

Paragraph 12.-That the plaintiffs with folded hands requested the defendants to open the locks out was to no result rather they threatened the plaintiffs with dire consequences and as a result the plaintiffs now suffering from lots of troubles as they can not running their business.

7. In paragraph 12 of the written statement, the defendants have controverted paragraph 11 of the plaint and have stated as follows:

"That the allegation made in para 11 is false, fraudulent and engineered for the purpose of the suit. It is false to say that plaintiffs were allowed to occupy the premises on or before 19.9.2003 and they left the premises after keeping the same under lock and key. As a matter of fact the premises was under defendants possession, control and locked. It is false to say that defendant kept their scooter and other articles on consent of the plaintiff. Allegations to the contrary are denied.

8. In the plaintiffs' application for local inspection under Order 39 Rule 7 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the following points were set out for the purpose of holding inspection:-

a) To note the nature and character of the suit premises as mentioned in the plaint.

b) To note how many locks are there on the door/shutter of the suit premises.

c) To note any other local feature of the suit premises which is to be shown to the ld. Commissioner at the time of holding local inspection.

9. While allowing the plaintiffs' application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned Court below made the following observations:

"... It appears from the record that (there is a) dispute in between the plaintiffs and def