Local inspection is impermissible without proper identification of the suit property in the plaint, emphasizing the necessity of clear description for legal proceedings.

Mr. Pinaki Ranjan Mitra …for the petitioner Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee Mr. Souvik Das Mr. K.R. Ahmed Mr. Tapas Chatterjee Mr. Rudranil Das ….for the opposite party This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against an order being No.22 dated February 22, 2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), 1^st Court at Howrah in Title Suit No.164 of 2022. By the order impugned, the application for local inspection was allowed.

The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the suit property has not been properly described in the plaint and for such reason the suit property cannot be identified properly. He submits that the opposite party herein filed an application for holding local inspection and in such application a schedule has been appended thereto. The learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that the property described in the application for local inspection is different from that mentioned in the schedule of the plaint.

Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party submits that the portion of the suit property in respect of which the local inspection was sought for has been specifically mentioned in the schedule of such application. He submits that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 forcibly entered into the suit property and cut down all banana trees, mango trees and uprooted the seasonal vegetables and have illegally put a fencing in a portion of the suit property by affixing concrete readymade pillars and fixed tin shed thereat just on the western side of the plaintiffs’ dwelling house for the purpose of creating obstruction to the smooth egress and egress of the petitioners to and from their dwelling house. Mr. Mukherjee further submits that pursuant to the impugned order local inspection has already been held and the Commissioner submitted his report and the petitioner had also filed an objection thereto. He thus submits that at this stage, this Court should not interfere with the order allowing the application for local inspection.

Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the materials placed.

Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that the Court may, on application of any party to the suit and on such terms as it thinks fit make an order for the detention, preservation or inspection of any property which is the subject matter of the suit, or as to which any question may arise therein.

The opposite party herein filed a suit for declaration that the opposite parties are the owners of the schedule property and they are possessing the same without any interruption from anyone and for a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, his men, servants, agents and/or assigns from entering and/or trespassing in the suit property. The suit property has been specifically described in the schedule of the plaint and the same is extracted hereinafter:-

“SCHEDULE REFERRED TO ABOVE All that piece and parcel of danga land measuring more or less 11.75 decimal comprised in L.R. Dag No.2313 Mouza Jujarsha P.S. Panchla, District-Howrah-711302.”

In paragraph 7 (a) of the plaint it has been specifically stated that the suit Dag is R.S. 2185 corresponding to L.R. Dag 2313 which is measuring about 60 decimals. It has been further stated therein that Nagendranath Mondal had 1/5^th share in the said property measuring about 12 decimals of land within the suit dag. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that after the death of Nagendranath Mondal his share in the said property devolved upon his widow Charubala Mondal @ Charulata Mondal and three daughters and the petitioners claimed to have purchased the share of the Nagendranath Mondal from the heirs of Nagendranath Mondal by virtue of a sale deed.

In the plaint, the plaintiffs have title claimed in respect of 11.75 decimals in L.R. Plot No.2313. Plaintiffs have claimed to be enjoying absolute possession of the suit property and are residin