RAJ KUMAR DADLANI Vs. PUSHPITA SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is to the Order No. 93 dated July 6, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Alipore in Title Suit No. 409 of 2004 thereby allowing an application for local inspection filed by the Plaintiff.

(2.) The short fact necessary for the purpose of disposal of this application is that the Plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 59 of 1994 for recovery of possession, mesne profit and other reliefs on the ground of reasonable requirement in respect of the premises as described in the Schedule of the plaint against the Defendant/Petitioner and other opposite parties. The Defendant/Petitioner herein is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement and the suit was at the stage of recording evidence on behalf of the Defendant/Petitioner. At that time, the Plaintiff filed an application for local inspection in respect of the premises at 753, Purbachal, Kolkata - 700078 which belongs to her husband. It may be mentioned herein that both the Plaintiff and her husband are specialized doctors and they have wanted the premises in suit for expanding their profession. They did not pray for inspection of that premises at the earlier stage and they adduced evidence in support of the plaint case. But at the stage of adducing evidence on behalf of the Defendant, they filed the application for local inspection of the premises. That application was allowed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.

(3.) Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.