Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Mandatory Nature of Giving Materials for Inspection - Order 39 Rule 7 of CPC is generally considered directory and discretionary, not mandatory. The provisions empower the court to order detention, preservation, or inspection of property, but do not impose an absolute obligation to do so. For instance, ["Rachna Gupta VS Parmodh Baru, S/o Sh. Om Parkash Baru - Jammu and Kashmir"] states: the power vested in a Court under the said provision is directory and discretionary in nature and not mandatory or obligatory. Similarly, some courts have emphasized that the purpose is to keep record of the property's condition, not necessarily to compel inspection ["Rachna Gupta VS Parmodh Baru, S/o Sh. Om Parkash Baru - Jammu and Kashmir"].
Scope and Purpose of Order 39 Rule 7 - The rule allows the court to order inspection or detention of property to facilitate the adjudication of the suit, not solely for collecting evidence. Several sources highlight that the court's discretion is involved and that inspections are meant to clarify issues or ascertain facts relevant to the case ["ITC LTD vs NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD AND ORS - Calcutta"], ["Tadar Mangku vs Tai Nikio - Gauhati"].
Court’s Discretion and Conditions for Inspection - The courts have held that inspection is not mandatory but depends on necessity, relevance, and whether it aids in justice. For example, ["Shri Anil Shaw vs Shri Vivek Kundalia - Calcutta"] notes that the court's power under Rule 7 is to be exercised when necessary for appreciation and adjudication, and not as a routine measure. The court may also consider whether inspection will serve the ends of justice or merely fish for evidence ["Tadar Mangku vs Tai Nikio - Gauhati"].
Procedural Aspects and Notices - While some rules, like Rule 8 of Order 39, require notice to the opposing party before inspection, the power to order inspection can sometimes be exercised ex parte, especially if justified. However, the general trend is that notice and opportunity are preferred, but not always mandatory ["JAMIL AHMED TABAN VS KHAIR-UL-NISA - Delhi"].
Judicial Interpretation and Case Law - Courts have clarified that the discretion to order inspection is broad but not absolute. The inspection should be relevant, necessary, and for a purpose directly connected to the suit's issues. Some judgments emphasize that inspection should not be used as a fishing expedition or to gather evidence unnecessarily ["ITC LTD vs NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD AND ORS - Calcutta"], ["Tadar Mangku vs Tai Nikio - Gauhati"].
Order 39 Rule 7 CPC does not mandate the court to compulsorily grant inspection of materials; rather, it confers a discretionary power. The court must assess whether the inspection is necessary for the purpose of adjudicating the case, and it can refuse if it deems the inspection unnecessary or if it would cause delay or misuse. The courts have consistently held that inspection is a tool to aid justice, not an obligatory step, and the decision to order inspection depends on the facts, relevance, and necessity of the case ["Rachna Gupta VS Parmodh Baru, S/o Sh. Om Parkash Baru - Jammu and Kashmir"], ["ITC LTD vs NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD AND ORS - Calcutta"].
References:- ["Rachna Gupta VS Parmodh Baru, S/o Sh. Om Parkash Baru - Jammu and Kashmir"]- ["ITC LTD vs NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD AND ORS - Calcutta"]- ["Tadar Mangku vs Tai Nikio - Gauhati"]- ["JAMIL AHMED TABAN VS KHAIR-UL-NISA - Delhi"]
In civil litigation, especially suits involving property disputes, parties often seek court-ordered inspections to preserve evidence or clarify facts. A common question arises: Is it mandatory for the court to give materials for inspection under Order 39 Rule 7? This provision of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, deals with detention, preservation, or inspection of suit property. Understanding its scope is crucial for litigants, lawyers, and courts alike.
This article explores the discretionary nature of Order 39 Rule 7, supported by judicial precedents and key distinctions. Note that this is general information based on legal interpretations and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Order 39 Rule 7 empowers courts to issue orders for the detention, preservation, or inspection of any property that is the subject matter of the suit or about which any question arises. The language is clear: the court may, on the application of any party... and on such terms as it thinks fit make such an order. Krishna Sharma VS Maya Mukherjee - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 445
This provision is typically invoked during interim proceedings, such as applications for temporary injunctions under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2. Its primary aim is to maintain the status quo of the property, record its existing condition, and prevent deterioration or mischief, rather than to collect evidence for trial. Courts use it judiciously to aid in adjudication, like deciding on injunctions.
No, it is not mandatory. The power is discretionary and enabling, not obligatory. Courts have consistently held that inspections are for limited purposes—detention, preservation, or inspection—and not for investigation or evidence gathering. Topwell Projects Consultants Ltd. VS Prem - 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 1694Ramakrushna Nayak VS Manoj Kumar Behera - Current Civil Cases (2025)
Key points include:- Discretionary exercise: The court may order inspection, leaving room for refusal based on facts. Bhanupratap Singh VS Sunil Kumar Singh - 2014 0 Supreme(MP) 1102- Limited scope: Focused on recording the property's condition for future reference, not proving facts. Allied Logistic Private Limited VS Registrar of Assurance At Kolkata - 2008 0 Supreme(Cal) 325- Not evidence: Reports are auxiliary; they may assist but are not automatically admissible as evidence unless proved. Ramakrushna Nayak VS Manoj Kumar Behera - Current Civil Cases (2025)
For instance, the Supreme Court and High Courts emphasize: The object of the said provision is to enable the Court to ascertain the Condition of the suit property or any part thereof on local inspection by appointing a Commissioner... such a report is automatically admitted in evidence and forms a part of the record, whereas an inspection report under Order 39, Rule 7, submitted on mere looking into matters, is not treated that way or given that importance. Topwell Projects Consultants Ltd. VS Prem - 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 1694
Indian courts have repeatedly clarified the non-mandatory character through landmark rulings:
The provision is designed primarily to keep record of the existing condition of the property for future reference, especially to detect changes, deterioration, or mischief by any party. Krishna Sharma VS Maya Mukherjee - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 445
In another case: The provisions of Order 39 Rule 7 CPC, as well, confers discretionary power on a Court to issue commission for local investigation as is evident from the expression 'the Court may issue a commission' leaving no room of doubt that the provision too is enabling in nature. Bhanupratap Singh VS Sunil Kumar Singh - 2014 0 Supreme(MP) 1102
Courts distinguish it from investigative tools: An application under Order 39 Rule 7 is limited to inspection and cannot be used for collecting evidence, which is outside its scope. Allied Logistic Private Limited VS Registrar of Assurance At Kolkata - 2008 0 Supreme(Cal) 325 Reports may not be treated as evidence but can be used to assist the court in proper adjudication. Ramakrushna Nayak VS Manoj Kumar Behera - Current Civil Cases (2025)
Order 39 Rule 7 differs from Order 26 Rule 9, which allows commissions for local investigations to elucidate matters in dispute. Under Rule 7, inspections are interim and non-evidentiary. Ashok Parwat VS Sudarshan - 2016 Supreme(MP) 480
One ruling notes: It was not a matter for local inspection under Order 39 rule 7... But was a matter for local investigation under Order 26 rule 9. Ashok Parwat VS Sudarshan - 2016 Supreme(MP) 480 Another affirms: An inspection report made under Order 39, Rule 7 CPC would tantamount to an evidence... A Commissioner cannot be appointed for gathering evidence which may be used by one of the parties. Shafiq Ahmed VS Naseer Ahmed - 2014 Supreme(Raj) 270
Various High Court decisions reinforce this view while highlighting procedural nuances:
These cases show courts exercise discretion based on necessity, property identification, and alignment with suit purposes, never mandatorily.
Discretion must be judicious. Inspections cannot exceed scope into full investigations. Parties cannot use Rule 7 to create new evidence; that's for trial. Courts ensure:- Clear application terms.- Limited commissioner role (e.g., no evidence collection). NARENDRA BISWAL vs THE FALCON MARINE EXPORT LTD. KHURDA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 6053- No automatic evidence status for reports. Shafiq Ahmed VS Naseer Ahmed - 2014 Supreme(Raj) 270
While not mandatory, courts may order if:- Essential for preserving property status quo.- Aids injunction decisions without delving into merits.- Property condition is disputed and verifiable on-site.
However, refusal is common if:- Property not properly described. Mamoni Guchait vs Tarun Mondal & Ors. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 3156- Evidence collection suspected. Allied Logistic Private Limited VS Registrar of Assurance At Kolkata - 2008 0 Supreme(Cal) 325- Alternative evidence suffices.
Courts should limit to property condition recording and treat reports as auxiliary. Krishna Sharma VS Maya Mukherjee - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 445
In summary, it is not mandatory for courts to order inspections or provide materials under Order 39 Rule 7 CPC. This discretionary tool serves preservation and limited adjudication aid, not evidence collection. Judicial consensus, from Supreme Court to High Courts, upholds this to prevent abuse. Topwell Projects Consultants Ltd. VS Prem - 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 1694Bhanupratap Singh VS Sunil Kumar Singh - 2014 0 Supreme(MP) 1102
Key Takeaways:- Discretionary, not obligatory.- For status quo, not proof.- Distinguish from Order 26.- Use judiciously with clear property details.
For property disputes, focus on strong pleadings and alternatives. Always seek professional legal counsel tailored to your situation.
References:1. Krishna Sharma VS Maya Mukherjee - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 4452. Topwell Projects Consultants Ltd. VS Prem - 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 16943. Ramakrushna Nayak VS Manoj Kumar Behera - Current Civil Cases (2025)4. Bhanupratap Singh VS Sunil Kumar Singh - 2014 0 Supreme(MP) 11025. Allied Logistic Private Limited VS Registrar of Assurance At Kolkata - 2008 0 Supreme(Cal) 3256. Manju Devi Paswan vs Bablu Mazumdar - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 3762, Mamoni Guchait vs Tarun Mondal & Ors. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 3156, Ashok Parwat VS Sudarshan - 2016 Supreme(MP) 480, Shafiq Ahmed VS Naseer Ahmed - 2014 Supreme(Raj) 270
This post is for informational purposes only and reflects general legal principles as of available precedents.
#Order39Rule7, #CPCLaw, #CourtInspection
A plain reading of the provisions of Order 39 Rule (7) of CPC prima-facie tend to show that the power vested in a Court under the said provision is directory and discretionary in nature and not mandatory or obligatory as it ex-facie emerges from the expression used in Order 39 ... The nature and scope of the provisions of Order 39 Rule (7) envisages that it enables the #HL_STAR....
Maitra, further contended that for passing an order under Or. 39 R. 7 of the C.P. Code it is not necessary that the said provision must confine to the subject matter of the suit itself and appropriate order can be passed under Order 39 R. 7 C.P. ... Rule 1(1) of Order 13 CPC again makes it mandatory for the parties to produce their original documents before settlement of issues. 8. ... The plaintiff immediately sou....
Division), 2nd Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 432 of 2021. By the order impugned the application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code for holding local inspection, stood rejected. ... The application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code stands allowed. ... The learned trial judge is directed to appoint a Commissioner for holding local inspection#HL_END....
Although it has been submitted that the aforesaid provision is not mandatory in nature but coordinate benches of this Court particularly in the case of Ganga Ram versus State of U.P. and others reported in 2020(38) LCD 1991 has clearly held the provision of Rule 7(3) (c) to be mandatory in nature. ... The aspect as to whether the Collector is required mandatory to inspect the property in terms of Rule 7(3)(c) upon proceedings being drawn up under sec....
39 Rule 7 of the Code. ... This revisional application has been filed challenging an order dated 5th September, 2024 passed by the learned Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas in Title Suit No.249 of 2018 whereby the application filed under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure ... etc. of subject-matter of suit or as to which any question may arise therein and did....
No.107/308 of 2025), wherein the learned trial court has directed for appointment of Commissioner under Order 39, Rule 7 of the C.P.C. ... The provisions contained in Order 39, Rule 7 empowers the court for detention, preservation or inspection of the suit property by authorizing any person in this regard to enter upon the land or building in question to get answer of such question that may arise....
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 ... The application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure appears to have been filed in aid of the application und....
To understand the scope of Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code, the provision has to be read along with Order XXVI Rule 10 of the Code. 8. ... Order XXVI Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under:- “Rule 10 Order XXVI of Code of Civil Procedure - Procedure of Commissioner.-(1) The Commissioner, after such local inspection as he deems necessary and after reducing to writing the evidence taken ... Though the application is filed....
Necessity of spot inspection and its mandatory nature, with reference to Rule 7 (3) (c) of the aforesaid Rules of 1997, has been reiterated, time and again by this Court in various authorities including Ajay Agarwal and others vs Commissioner Lucknow and others, reported in 2023 ... The said revision application was dismissed vide order dated December 7, 2006. g. Aggrieved by the order dated December 7, 2006, the Petitioner has pre....
By the order impugned, the learned Judge 5th Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 24 of 2008 rejected the application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. ... 7. Learned Advocate Commissioner had been cross examined at length on these aspects and the report was accepted. Under such circumstances, the learned court held that the inspection was not necessary. ... suit property and #....
But was a matter for local investigation under Order 26 rule 9 of the Code.”� The defendant claimed that the were pillars on the boundary between Mouza Sripur and another continguous Mouza Hariharpur and on another side of the said Mouza and Chak Brindahanpur. He rightly held that it was not a matter for local inspection under Order 39 rule 7, Civil P.C.
Although His Lordship of the Hon'ble Orissa High Court held that such a report cannot be treated as a piece of evidence, but with respect His Lordships has not clarified as to the need, the nature, and the use of the inspection report under Order 39, Rule 7 CPC. As stated above, the said inspection report would have to be necessarily taken on record and utilised for deciding the issues in dispute. Obviously, the inspection report under Order 39, Rule 7 CPC has a purpose for the trial court. It is not merely an ornament to be kept in the judicial record.
3. THE opposite party no.1 also filed an application for local inspection under Order 39 Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code for holding local inspection of the said property. Commission work was conducted on March 3, 2008 and the report of the commissioner was filed in Court. THE application was allowed and an Advocate Commissioner appointed.
In this connection, this Court aptly points out the decision Kalandi Swain V. Braja Kishore AIR 1980 Orissa 98 wherein it is observed as follows: 6. It is to be noted that the appointment of Commissioner for ascertaining the condition of suit premises by making local inspection comes within the purview of Order 39 Rule 7 and not under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C., in the considered opinion of this Court. "In the instant case the court directed the pleader-commissioner to got to the spot for ascertainment of facts on proper examination and sifting of materials, for elucidating or....
It is pleaded that the impugned order is an interim order against which revision is not maintainable according 1999 RRD 506. 5. Opposing the contentions of the petitioners, the learned counsel for the non-petitioners argued that the appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority has become in fructuous as the impugned order dated 7.7.07 was effective only upto 23.8.07. It is also argued that it is the discretion of the trial Court under Order 39 Rule 7 of the C.P.C. and Order 26 Rule 9 of the C.P.C. to ask for the report of site inspection.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
