The purpose of local investigation under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code is to elucidate any matter in dispute, and it can be allowed even in the absence of a boundary dispute or encroachment with a prayer for recovery of possession if it is necessary to make something clearer by explaining it more fully.

JUDGMENT

Subhasis Dasgupta, J. - The impugned order No. 48 dated 21.02.20185, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Serampore in Title Suit No. 288 of 2013, rejecting the prayer for local investigation under Order 26 Rule 9 of the C.P.C. is under challenge in this revisional application.

2. Learned court below, for want of a boundary dispute, absence of a claim of encroachment, was not satisfied with the prayer for local investigation, and accordingly rejected the same.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner/plaintiff assailing the impugned order submitted that the learned court below had improperly exercised its authority in understanding the real purport of the provisions contained in Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C., as the court was empowered to issue local investigation commission for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, even in absence of a case based on boundary dispute, encroachment and recovery of possession also.

4. Per contra, learned advocate for the opposite party/defendant No.1 supporting the order of the learned court below replied that the entire effort of petitioner was to collect evidence favourable to his purpose, and the same being the sole objective purpose of local investigation, the prayer for local investigation had been rightly rejected.

5. It was contended by the learned advocate for the opposite party that it was not a case based on boundary dispute, nor a encroachment with prayer for recovery of possession, without which the prayer for local investigation cannot be instrumentalized to fish out evidence.

6. Before addressing the issue raised, mentioning of some salient facts is felt necessary, which may be adumbrated as follows.

7. The claim of petitioner/plaintiff is that there lies a saw mill in "A" schedule property, corresponding to R.S. Plot No. 130 under Khatian No. 215, L.R. Plot No. 141 giving rise to Khatian No. 1298, 1345, 55, 1630, 1631, 1362 within Mouza Krishnapur under Garalgacha Gram Panchayat, P.S. Chanditala.

8. The saw mill, is claimed to be owned by plaintiff, for which he has obtained necessary trade license from appropriate authority. Petitioner/plaintiff has claimed his right, title, interest and possession over "A" schedule property by purchase as well as by obtaining settlement in the year 1996 from one Sachindra Nath Manna, who was the original tenant under Government. One fine morning on the strength of a deed dated 12th March, 2013, defendants started disturbing possession of plaintiff/petitioner in respect of his peaceful possession over "A" schedule land, claiming their title to the extent covered in such deed, and threatened plaintiff/petitioner to demolish the boundary wall of "A" schedule property.

9. The suit property shown in "A" schedule of plaint is said to be bounded by boundary wall on its north and west side, where there is no access of third party.

10. The plaintiff/petitioner receiving such threat of dispossession from defendants, filed a suit for declaration and injunction against defendants.

11. Admittedly, the prayer for injunction, though initially granted against the defendants, but ultimately it was rejected.

12. Upon perusal of the copy of prayer for local investigation it is abundantly clear that it is not a case based on boundary dispute, nor encroachment with a prayer for recovery of possession. While seeking declaration in the pending suit with respect to "A" schedule property, petitioner had incidentally sought for an order declaring the deed conferring right, title, interest, if any, upon the defendants, be declared to be forged, manufactured and collusively prepared. There is clear stipulation that the suit property, shown in "A" schedule of the plaint is bounded by walls.

13. In course of hearing, identity of "A" schedule property was grossly focussed by either of the parties to this case, stressing upon peculiarity of its location by reason of its proximity with nearest mouza.

14. The fight between the parties is thus sq