JUDGMENT : Banerji, J. There has been no legal trial of this case, and on this ground it should in my opinion be remanded to the court of first instance. The suit was one for the removal of certain obstructions to a pathway and for an injunction. The 26th February, 1913 was fixed for the hearing of the suit after issues had been framed on a previous date. On the 26th February, 1913 the parties stated that they would not adduce oral evidence but would abide by the result of a local inspection to be made by the learned Munsif and any local enquiry which he might deem it necessary to make. The Munsif visited the locality on the 16th of March, 1913. and on the 17th of March, which was the date fixed for the decision of the case he recorded a note of his inspection. He did not deliver judgment but adjourned the case to the 10th of April, for delivery of judgment. Why he did not deliver judgment at once and why he fixed such a long date does not appear from the record. On the 1st of April, that Munsif was transferred, and his successor took up the case on the 10th of April, the date fixed for delivery of judgment and on the basis of the inspection note of his predecessor decided the case. This in my opinion was an irregular and incorrect proceeding. 2. The parties had agreed to abide by the inspection or the locality by the gentleman who was the Munsif on the 26th of February, 1913. They did not agree to accept the result of an inspection made by his successor. As a matter of fact his successor never inspected the locality but decided the case upon the inspection note of his predecessor. It is difficult to say what the inferences and the opinion of the Munsif who visited the locality would have been if the case had been argued out before him. The suit was decided against the defendants and they appealed. The lower appellate court was of opinion that the defendants were estopped from contending that the court should have decided the case after recording evidence. This view is in my judgment erroneous. No question of estoppel arises. The suit was decided against the defendants and they appealed. The lower appellate court was of opinion that the defendants were estopped from contending that the court should have decided the case after recording evidence. This view is in my judgment erroneous. No question of estoppel arises. As I have already said the parties agreed not to give oral evidence if the officer who was then presiding over the court visited the locality and drew his inferences from such visit and from any local inquiry which he might make. The Munsif who visited the locality not having recorded a judgment embodying his decision of the questions then before the court, his successor ought to have tried the case himself. As this was not done, there has not been a legal trial of the case. I allow the appeal, set aside the decrees of the courts below, and remand the case to the court of first instance with directions to re-admit it under its original number in the register and dispose of it according to law. Costs here and hitherto will be costs in the cause.