JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Plaintiffs are the Petitioners in this Civil Revision assailing the order refusing to depute a commission for local investigation under Order 39, Rule 7, Code of Civil Procedure. 2. In the suit for permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants from laying a road on the agricultural land of the Plaintiffs, an application for ad interim injunction was filed. The Defendants filed objection claiming the existence of a road on the suit land. The trial court without giving any specific finding directed maintenance of status quo. About five months after the order dated 13-12-1985, the Plaintiffs filed an application on 2-5-1986 for proceeding against the Defendants alleging violation of the order of injunction to maintain status quo. In the said petition, the Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants have constructed a new road on the suit land in utter disregard to the order of maintaining status quo. Along with the petition, an application was filed for local investigation by a Pleader-Commissioner to find out if a new road has been constructed and in case such a road has been constructed to report the length and breadth of the road and the fact of removal of earth from the suit land for the purpose of construction of such road. The trial court after hearing, having rejected the prayer the order is assailed in this Civil Revision. 3. Under Order 39, Rule 7, Code of Civil Procedure, Court has the discretion to make an order for inspection of the property which is the subject matter of the suit. There can thus, be no doubt that the Court has jurisdiction. The question for consideration is regarding the material irregularity in exercise of the jurisdiction. 4. The Court has rejected the prayer on the ground that the same would amount to collecting evidence for the party. Mr. N.C. Pati, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the ground on which the application is rejected is result of non-application of mind. He relied upon a decision reported in Amulya Kumar Samaddar and Others Vs. Annada Charan Das and Others, in support of his contention that in cases where the age of the construction is to be found out the power under Order 39, Rule 7, CPC ought to be exercised. He relied upon a decision reported in Amulya Kumar Samaddar and Others Vs. Annada Charan Das and Others, in support of his contention that in cases where the age of the construction is to be found out the power under Order 39, Rule 7, CPC ought to be exercised. This decision was considering whether the power to direct local investigation would be exercised under Order 39, Rule 7, CPC or Order 26, Rules 4 and 9, Code of Civil Procedure. It is not an authority of any pursuasive value for the question involved in the present case. 5. The object of inspection of the suit land is to find out its condition. Assistance of the Court would be necessary where the party requiring the assistance is incapable of having the knowledge in view of the nature of the suit land. There may be situation where the party seeking the assistance of the Court is not allowed to have the inspection himself or through his agents or where the evidence adduced by both sides is such that the Court feels that the report of local investigation would help in assessing the evidence properly. The wide discretion under Order 39, Rule 7, Code of Civil Procedure, is not to be exercised on the mere asking of the same. 6. In this case, the land being agricultural land is open to everybody. Witnesses would be available to the Plaintiffs to prove their assertions. In such circumstance, trial court is justified in finding that the direction for inspection would be finding out materials for the Plaintiffs. I may make it clear that in case after recording evidence the Court is satisfied an application that local inspection would be necessary he may issue the direction on the application of either party. 7. In the result, there being no merit in this Civil Revision, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The trial court shall do well to decide the proceeding within two months from today. Final Result : Dismissed