JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows: Bhattacharya, J.: This revisional application bas been, directed against the order of a Subordinate Judge, Alipore, in a partition suit rejecting an application for local investigation filed by the defendant nos.1 to 3. The relevant facts of this case are simple. One Gouri Sanbr Guha filed a suit for partition against several defendants including the petitioner before us. There was a preliminary decree in the suit and against that decree an appeal was taken to this Court. In that appeal there was a remand order. In the judgment passed in the appeal an issue was framed as to whether or not there was any previous partition by metes and bounds between the co-shares in respect of C. S. and R.S. plot nos. 271 and 271/3993 and 271/3994. In the ordering portion it was clearly stated that the case was being remitted to the trial court for a fresh decision on the issue as mentioned after giving an opportunity to both the parties to adduce such further or other evidence as might be considered just and proper. After the records had reached the trial court, an application was filed by the defendant nos.1 to 3 under Order 26, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for Ideal investigation. The defendants wanted to rely upon a certified copy of a very old partition deed of the year 1908 and for that purpose they wanted to resort to local investigation to identify the plots in suit with the lands described in the said partition deed. For the purpose of identification of the lands relayment was necessary and unless there was local investigation it would not be possible to identify the suit lands with the lands mentioned in the partition deed. The learned Subordinate Judge came to the finding that the local investigation as prayed for was not necessary at that stage. He was also of the opinion that the deed was not relevant for the present case because it did not refer to plot nos. 271, 271/3993 and 271/3994. According to the learned Subordinate Judge the partition deed intended to be relied upon by the defendants did not help the parties in any way. In this view of the matter the application for local investigation was rejected. 2. We have heard Mr. 271, 271/3993 and 271/3994. According to the learned Subordinate Judge the partition deed intended to be relied upon by the defendants did not help the parties in any way. In this view of the matter the application for local investigation was rejected. 2. We have heard Mr. Ganguly, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, who applied for local investigation and Mr.Roy for the plaintiff-opposite party. 3. A preliminary objection was taken by Mr. Roy that the present revisional application under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable, as it is not a case decided mentioned in the Section. The word "case" has not been defined either in the Code of Civil Procedure or in the General Clauses Act. In the present case the defendant filed a petition for local investigation. According to the Code of Civil Procedure, be has a right to take necessary steps to prove his own case and for that purpose, certainly, he is entitled to take assistance of a local investigation. That is the right of a party to the litigation. If the Court refuses that right illegally, unreasonably or arbitrarily, certainly it becomes a case of culpable error likely to inflict grave injustice. When the Court refuses to entertain a prayer of a party regarding the manner by which he wants to prove his case though permitted by law. it is a case decided displaying an illegal exercise of jurisdiction or, at any rate, a material irregularity and illegality which requires interference in revision. As we have already indicated earlier there was a direction in the First Appeal that the trial court would give an opportunity to the parties to adduce fresh evidence so that the court might come to a decision as to whether or not there was a previous partition in respect of the three plots already mentioned. The learned Subordinate Judge was perhaps not conscious at the time when he passed the order that in the year 1908 there was no Cadestral Surveyor Revisional Settlement operation and that the present plot numbers mentioned in the suit could not have been included in the petition deed. The proper course, therefore, for identification of the suit plots with the plots under the partition deed would be to take assistance of local investigation. The proper course, therefore, for identification of the suit plots with the plots under the partition deed would be to take assistance of local investigation. We have no doubt to hold that the "Case" mentioned in Sec.115 is of wider import than the 'Suit' or 'Appeal'. 'Case decided' means decision. On substantial questions in dispute between the parties affecting their rights in course of the trial or during the pendency of any suit. Wrongful rejection of an application for local investigation necessary for proper decision comes under the purview of Sec. 115 of the C. P. Code. In this connection we may refer to the case of (1) Sukumar Chatterjee v. Kiran Chandra Mitter, reported in AIR 1964 Calcutta at page 439. That is a Division Bench decision of this Court. An elaborate discussion has been made in that case on this point and we respectfully agree with the proposition of law accepted there and in that view of the matter, we would hold that the present application is covered by section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and a]so by Art. 227 of the Constitution. 4. The next point urged by Mr. Roy is that unless the documents relied open by the defendant are proved before the Court, there can be no local investigation. We are afraid, we cannot accept this contention. Local investigation is to be made prior to the taking of actual evidence at the time of trial. After the local investigation, evidence would be taken at the time of hearing and at that time if any evidence offered is found to be inadmissible or that a document is not proved, the Court will pass necessary order, but no evidence need be taken at the time when the learned Judge would be considering the application for local investigation. In this connection Mr. Roy bas submitted that there will be a great deal of delay in the matter of local investigation and, therefore the defendant should produce necessary witness to prove the boundaries of the land mentioned in the partition deed for identification at the time of hearing and on that basis the court would decide the issue. This submission is unacceptable. 5. As we have already stated, by oral evidence it cannot be proved by witnesses as to whether or not the lands mentioned in the partition deed coincide with those mentioned in the plaint. This submission is unacceptable. 5. As we have already stated, by oral evidence it cannot be proved by witnesses as to whether or not the lands mentioned in the partition deed coincide with those mentioned in the plaint. The identity has got to be ascertained by local investigation and if there is any delay necessary steps may be taken to avoid the same. We cannot presume that in case of local investigation there would be delay in the disposal of the suit and if local investigation is necessary for ends of justice and for that purpose if sometime is spent that is un-avoidable. 6. Mr. Roy wanted to argue further that the parties to the partition deed might not be the predecessor-in interest of the parties to this suit. Mr. Roy submits that with regard to one of the parties viz. Dinobandhu Roy Chowdhury, he is not aware if he is connected with the parties before the trial court. Anyway, that is a matter for the defendant to prove before the Court at the time of the trial for showing that there was a previous partition in respect of the suit lands. 7. In view of the discussion made above we find that the learned Subordinate Judge acted illegally and with material irregularity in refusing the prayer of the defendants for local investigation. In our view, the local investigation would be necessary and the defendants should be given an opportunity to prove their case, as prayed for. The impugned order is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 8. In the result, the revisional application succeeds and the Rule is hereby made absolute. The prayer of the defendants for local investigation shall stand allowed and the learned Subordinate Judge will pass necessary orders and proceed with the suit according to law. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case we, however, pass no order as to costs. 10. It appears that the suit was filed as far back as in the year 1965. An attempt should be made to dispose of the suit as early as possible. Janab. J. ; I agree.