JUDGMENT

B.K. MISRA, J. : The opposite party Nos.1 to 4 of this writ petition as plaintiffs instituted Civil Suit No.139 of 2011 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Jagatsinghpur for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants along with their family members, relatives, agents etc. from evicting the plaintiffs from the shop rooms and from creating any disturbances or hindrances in their regular business. The said suit was filed on 16.8.2011. Besides that the plaintiff also prayed for ad interim order of injunction which was registered as Interim Application No.153 of 2011. In the said suit the plaintiffs also filed another petition under Order 39, Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as “C.P.C.”) praying the Court for appointment of Pleader Commissioner to answer the points as indicated in the schedule appended to the said petition. The defendants of the suit, namely the present petitioners filed their objection to the prayer of the plaintiffs for appointment of Pleader Commissioner. Learned Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Jagatsinghpur after hearing the parties disallowed the prayer of the plaintiffs for deputing a Pleader Commissioner by the impugned order at Annexure-5. Being aggrieved by the said order at Annexure-5 the present petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of the same with an alternate prayer for a direction to the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Jagatsinghpur for considering the prayer for deputing a Pleader Commissioner afresh.

2.The opposite parties entered appearance and filed their counter affidavit wherein they averred that the impugned order has been passed by the learned Court below on due application of judicial mind and conscience and when the learned Court below refused to exercise the judicial discretion and when the order in question is a speaking order, the same should not be disturbed because of the simple reason that the Court is not to exercise such powers lightly on mere asking for the same. Accordingly, it is prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

3.I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials placed for adjudicating the matter including copy of the plaint. The Plaintiffs in C.S. No.139 of 2011 who are the present opposite parties in this writ petition claimed to be in occupation of shop rooms where they claim of running their business having been entered into an agreement with one Usman Khan, namely the defendant No.8 who is the owner of the shop rooms having 50% interest over the suit property. But when dissention arose in between the defendant No.8 and defendant Nos.1 to 7 (which also includes the present two petitioners of this writ petition) regarding the ownership of the shop rooms over the suit property in question, attempt was made by the present petitioners as well as the other defendants to evict the opposite parties from the alleged shop rooms, the suit was filed for permanent injunction. In that suit prayer was also made for ad interim temporary injunction. Besides that the plaintiff also filed an application for local inspection with regard to the possession of the shop rooms in question by the opposite parties as according to the petitioners the opposite parties are not in possession of the shop rooms as they have already vacated the same and therefore to facilitate the Court in arriving at the true and just decision, the prayer was made for local inspection of the suit property.

4.Under Order 39, Rule 7 of the C.P.C. the Court undoubtedly has discretion to make an order for inspection of the property in dispute. There can be no doubt that such discretion is to be judicially exercised depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case when occasion demands that inspection is necessary for proper appreciation and adjudication of the dispute, local inspection may be necessary. It is also the established position of law that report of the