Order XVIII Rule 18 CPC Inspection Before Evidence Recording Invalid: Karnataka High Court

Order XVIII Rule 18 CPC Inspection Before Evidence Recording Invalid: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has firmly ruled that a trial court's power to inspect a suit property under Order XVIII Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) must generally be exercised after evidence has been recorded, not before. Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil set aside a memorandum of facts recorded by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Malavalli , during a premature spot inspection conducted while an application for temporary injunction was pending in a property dispute.

When a Judge Became an Investigator

The case arose from a suit for permanent injunction filed by Sri H.M. Manu against Sri Marigowda and Smt Chikkathayamma. During the pendency of the plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction , the trial judge visited the suit property on July 18, 2022 , and recorded a memorandum of facts noting who was in possession—a key issue in the case. This inspection occurred before any evidence was adduced by either party.

The petitioner argued that while a court has the power to inspect property at any stage, using it at the initial stage, especially when the temporary injunction application was still pending, was impermissible. The respondents countered that the inspection was within the court’s discretion and that the memorandum could not be challenged until it was actually used in an order.

The High Court's Firm Stand

Justice Patil analyzed the scope of Order XVIII Rule 18 CPC and several precedents from the Supreme Court and High Courts, including Ugamsingh & Mishrimal v. Kesrimal and Binny Ltd. v. H.K. Madiath . He distilled a comprehensive set of principles governing local inspections :

• Primary Purpose: The inspection is meant to help the court understand and appreciate evidence already on record, not to gather independent evidence.
• Proper Timing: The power “should be generally after recording the evidence in the suit and only upon satisfaction that there is ambiguity on certain factual aspects.”
• No Substitution for Evidence: Observations made during inspection cannot replace sworn testimony, as parties have no opportunity to cross-examine the judge.
• No Unofficial Investigation: “The Court cannot convert itself into an unofficial investigator by making enquiries from persons at the spot regarding the rights of the parties.”

Applying these principles, the Court found the trial judge’s action egregious.

Key Observations from the Judgment

“In the present case, the Trial Court has committed a grave error in prematurely exercising the power under Order XVIII Rule 18 of the CPC even before recording the evidence.”

The judge noted that the inspection was conducted for a mere 20 minutes, during which the presiding officer posed questions to persons at the spot about possession—effectively collecting extra-judicial evidence .

“The memorandum of facts indicates the aspect of the possession over the suit schedule property, which was prematurely recorded and hence, is required to be set aside.”

The Court underscored that while the memorandum can be considered at the time of final judgment, it can never be the sole basis for deciding a dispute.

Decision and Implications

The High Court allowed the writ petition , quashing the impugned proceedings dated July 18, 2022 , recording the memorandum of facts in O.S. No. 290/2022. No costs were awarded.

This ruling sends a strong message to trial courts across Karnataka: local inspections are a tool for clarifying evidence, not a shortcut to gather facts. Any such inspection conducted before the parties have laid their evidence will be viewed as a procedural overreach and may be set aside, especially if it influences interim orders like temporary injunctions. The judgment reinforces that judges must remain neutral observers during inspections, not active investigators.