O. P. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiffs second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31st January, 1997 passed by 1st Addl. District Judge, Jhansi by which the judgment of the trial Court dated 19th August, 1995 has been reversed and the suit has been dismissed. The second appeal was admitted on the following question of law framed by this Court :"whether the Court had any authority to base its judgment on materials gathered during inspection beyond Order 18, Rule 18, C. P. C. ?" ( 2 ) THE factual background is that the plaintiff-appellant I. A. Siddiqui was working as a Stenographer from the year 1979 in parichha Thermal Power Project, Parichha and he was allotted a residential quarter No. 161/41 (ii) for his residence in the year 1982. The plaintiff filed a suit alleging that he was living in the said quarter with his family from the time of allotment and he was also drawing site Compensation Allowance. The defendants wanted to allot the quarter to some persons of their choice and, therefore, they are threatening the plaintiff that he will be ejected from the quarter. On these allegations the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction against Executive Engineer, electricity Civil Division (i) and Electricity Civil division (ii ). Later on by an amendment of the plaint U. P. Electricity Board, Lucknow was also added as a defendant. ( 3 ) THE defendants contested the suit on the ground that residential quarter is allotted in the project area for the residence of the employee and if an employee does not live in the allotted quarter, he cannot retain its possession. It was further pleaded by the defendants that they received information to the effect that the plaintiff is not residing in the quarter allotted to him. Therefore an Assistant engineer and a Junior Engineer were sent for enquiry and they found that one munni Lal is residing in quarter No. 161/41 (ii) allotted to the plaintiff. It was also found that Munni Lal is an outsider who has no right to live in the quarter and that Munni Lal performed the marriage of his daughter from the same quarter. According to defendants this unauthorised occupation was the reason for the cancellation of allotment. ( 4 ) ON the basis of the pleadings the trial court framed the necessary issues. According to defendants this unauthorised occupation was the reason for the cancellation of allotment. ( 4 ) ON the basis of the pleadings the trial court framed the necessary issues. The plaintiff examined Sanjiv Kumar Jain P. W. 1 who is living in an adjacent quarter. The plaintiff also examined himself as P. W. 2 and closed his evidence. The defendants examined D. W. 1 Krishna Nand, Junior Engineer who accom panied by Vivek Kumar, Assistant Engineer, had inspected the vicinity. After considering the evidence produced by the parties the trial court decreed the suit and passed a decree of permanent injunction that the plaintiff should not be ejected except in accordance with law. ( 5 ) BEING aggrieved against the judgment of the trial Court the defendants filed an appeal before the learned District Judge and it was transferred to 1st Addl. District Judge. On 30. 1. 1997 after the close of the arguments, an application was filed on behalf of the defendants praying that the Presiding officer should himself inspect the site. On the margin of the application the plaintiffs Counsel wrote "no objection" and therefore the learned Additional District Judge proceeded to the spot at 1. 30 p. m. on the same day accompanied by plaintiff I. A. Siddiqui, Mr. Jai govind Agarwal, Counsel for the defendants and the stenographer attached to the Court. On the dictation of the learned Addl. District judge the stenographer took down the notes in his note book and later on, on the same day, it was transcribed and signed by the presiding Officer. The inspection note was placed on the record. The Court fixed 31st january, 1997 for objections on the report and for further arguments. The learned Counsel for the parties were asked to sign the inspection note on 30. 1. 1997. The defendants counsel put his signatures but the plaintiffs Counsel did not do so. On 31st january, 1997 the inspection report was sent to the plaintiffs Counsel who put his signatures on it but added that his client has taken the file from him. The case was taken up for arguments on 31. 1. 1997 when the Counsel for the defendant-appellant appeared but the respondent or his Counsel did not appear. Therefore after hearing the appellants the judgment was pronounced on the same day, the appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed, hence this second appeal. The case was taken up for arguments on 31. 1. 1997 when the Counsel for the defendant-appellant appeared but the respondent or his Counsel did not appear. Therefore after hearing the appellants the judgment was pronounced on the same day, the appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed, hence this second appeal. ( 6 ) MR. Arun Tandon, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. R. Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the respondents have been heard. As the second appeal is to be decided on the question whether the Court below has committed any illegality in basing its judgment on the inspection note, the contents of the inspection note are re-produced below in extenso : inspection Report :"today on the application of the Counsel for the appellants I inspected the disputed place in the presence of Mr. Jai Govind Agrawal, Advocate and Mr. Devendra Kumar, Advocate for the appellants, and Shri I. A. Siddiqui, at about 2 p. m. The disputed quarter is numbered as Type II, Block 41, (161/ 41 ). At the front door as well as on the rear door sticker of Happy Deepawali and Hindu Gods and Goddess were found affixed. Shri I. A. Siddiqui obtained the key of the door from the residents of Quarter No. 162/41 and opened the door. One calender of goddess Laxmi Ji was hanging on the wall. Some Cards of Happy Deepawali for the year 1996, addressed to Deepak, kambli, Preeti and Mayur Gupta were also found in the room. An Almirah was there. On the doors of which Subh Labh as well as inside the Almirah subh-Labh and sticker of Ganesh Ji and Laxmi Ji were fixed. One double bed, one Takhat were there in the house. One sticker of Shri Ram Sharma, acharya, Shanti Kunj, Haridwar to the effect "apni Roti Mil Bant Kar Khao taki Tumhare Bhat Sukhi Rah Sake" was also affixed on the inside door. The telephone is installed in the house bears number 2168 while the respondent discloses its number as 2137. In the kitchen two calendars of Krishan Ji and shankar Ji were hanging on the doors of window. Sindur in a phial and stick stand also kept there. No religious book and aluminium utensils were found in the kitchen as pointed out by the Counsel for the appellant. On enquiry from the respondent, no stenographers book was reported to be there. Sindur in a phial and stick stand also kept there. No religious book and aluminium utensils were found in the kitchen as pointed out by the Counsel for the appellant. On enquiry from the respondent, no stenographers book was reported to be there. Some casettes of Jago Ma Jagdambe Jholi Bhardo ma Laxman Shakti ? Sunder Kand and rakhi Bewafa Sanam were kept there, which were checked in presence of aforesaid persons and found them correct. Two pairs of shoes were also there. On enquiry the respondent has reported them to be of his -younger brother, who was not present at the time of inspection. No other clothes etc. were reported to be there. Dung cakes were also kept in the open place in front of the quarter. On enquiry the respondent disclosed that he has a cow with them. One sticker each of Om and ganesh Ji and Laxmi Ji were also affixed on the back of rear door. About 15 minutes after entering into quarter, two ladies having Burkas on their persons alongwith one female child came into the quarter. " (Emphasis Supplied) ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the portion of the inspection note which has been underlined above shows that the learned Addl. District Judge not only inspected the site but also cross-examined the plaintiff. This, according to learned Counsel, was beyond the scope of Order 18, Rule18, c. P. C. It was further argued that the 1st appellate Court has based its judgment solely on the inspection note prepared by it. It is argued that an inspection note prepared by the Presiding Officer can be utilised for appreciating the evidence which is already on record and it cannot be used as a substitute for the evidence. It has further been argued that the power under Order 18, Rule 18, C. P. C. cannot be exercised for collecting evidence on behalf of the party. The learned Counsel for the defendants-respondents has argued that the 1st Appellate Court has not done anything which may be described as ojbectionable. Both the parties have cited a number of judgments in support of their respective contentions and therefore this Court may have a look at the cases cited at the Bar. The learned Counsel for the defendants-respondents has argued that the 1st Appellate Court has not done anything which may be described as ojbectionable. Both the parties have cited a number of judgments in support of their respective contentions and therefore this Court may have a look at the cases cited at the Bar. ( 8 ) IT has been held in Manindra Kumar rai v. Paresh Chandra Dey, that where the court performs the function of Commissioner and surveys the land in dispute under Order 26, Rule 9, C. P. C. , it acts as a witness to the most important issue which is to be fought between parties and hence disqualified itself from further continuing adjudication of the suit. In Raghuvir Harischandra Salgaonkar v. Smt. Saraswati Pundalik Salgaonjcar, it has been held that the power under Order 18, rule 18 had been conferred on the Court with a view to enable it to understand and appreciate the evidence on record. In a given case the Judge may not be in a position to properly understand and appreciate the oral and documentary evidence on record without himself seeing the situation on the spot. It is to this limited extent that the Court is permitted to see the spot and draw its notes. This power, therefore, cannot extend to enable the Court to rely solely or wholly on its observations disregarding the evidence which is on record. Memorandum or the notes of inspection based on the observations of the Judge cannot be treated as evidence in the suit or proceedings and cannot be on par with any evidence because in that case the Judge himself would be a witness and the party against whom the memorandum of the notes go would have no opportunity of cross-examining the Judge. In smt. Pathummakulty Hajjumma v. State of kerala and Anr, it has been observed that any authority on which power is conferred to make a local inspection is not to act with the object of collecting evidence for the case. Once the authority assumes the role of one gathering evidence by the local inspection, it would cease to be qualified to decide the dispute, for, it will be then acting on its own evidence. Once the authority assumes the role of one gathering evidence by the local inspection, it would cease to be qualified to decide the dispute, for, it will be then acting on its own evidence. The role of a Court or a Tribunal in making local inspection is only to see for itself matters which, in the light of such inspection, could be understood better by the authority. ( 9 ) A similar question arose in the case of ugam Singh and Anr. v. Kesrimal and Orsa there was a dispute between two sects of jains as to whether a particular idol belonged to the Digambar sect or Swetambar sect. In deciding the dispute the trial Judge relied heavily on his own observations at the time of spot inspection. The procedure adopted by the trial Judge was assailed on the ground that what the trial Court found on his inspection cannot be evidence in the case. The judgment of the trial Court was also assailed on the ground that there is nothing to show that the trial had drawn up inspection notes and made them part of the record as required under the law. These contentions were repelled by the apex Court on the ground that most of the witnesses produced were non-Jains and, therefore, their evidence does not carry much weight to establish to which sect the idol belongs. It was also found that the remaining witnesses have given statements in favour of their respective parties. It was found that though the decision is based mostly on the site inspection, while giving the findings the trial judge has remarked that the evidence led by the plaintiffs appears to be correct. Under these circumstances the Supreme Court observed that "these observations themselves show that the evidence on record was an element in the formulation of the trial Courts judgment buttressed by the observations of the learned Judge during the site inspection. There is, therefore, no validity in the contention that the finding ,of the trial Judge was based entirely on the result of his inspection. ( 10 ) A perusal of the above cases shows that normally the site inspection is not a substitute for evidence. The purpose of site inspection is to appreciate the evidence already on record. There is, therefore, no validity in the contention that the finding ,of the trial Judge was based entirely on the result of his inspection. ( 10 ) A perusal of the above cases shows that normally the site inspection is not a substitute for evidence. The purpose of site inspection is to appreciate the evidence already on record. However, in some cases, which will be noted presently an exception has been carved out for those cases in which the parties by their conduct have agreed that the case may be decided on the basis of the impressions formed by the Judge who inspected the site. In Municipal Committee, bilaspur v. Wamanrao Vinayakrao Brahmin. It has been held that it is true that in an ordinary case the opinion of the Judge formed on spot inspection cannot take the place of evidence, but where the parties had agreed to accept the opinion of the Judge on certain point requiring a spot inspection and for that reason led no evidence, in such special circumstances, the opinion of the Judge can be accepted in place of evidence. In Amrat lal and ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmedabad, similar observations have been made. Both these cases were considered in chandraram v. Bhoma, in which Wanchoo, c. J. (as his Lordship then was) has observed as under:"the law is well settled that an inspection under order 18 Rule 18, C. P. C. is for the purpose of understanding the evidence and cannot be a substitute for evidence of the parties. But in special cases, an inspection note can also be a substitute for the evidence of parties. This is so where parties asked the Court to go and inspect the subject matter and therefor give a decision on the basis of the result of the inspection and state that they would not lead any evidence on the point about which they desire inspection. " ( 11 ) IT is this aspect of the matter which brings the present case in a special category. After the close of the arguments on 30. 1. 1997, the defendants moved an application to the effect that "the site inspection may kindly be made immediately and if the respondent is found residing in the disputed quarter with his family, the appeal may be decided accordingly". On the said application the Counsel for the plaintiff wrote the words "no objection". 1. 1997, the defendants moved an application to the effect that "the site inspection may kindly be made immediately and if the respondent is found residing in the disputed quarter with his family, the appeal may be decided accordingly". On the said application the Counsel for the plaintiff wrote the words "no objection". The Court then proceeded to inspect the site on the same day accompanied by the parties and their Counsel. The Court dictated a site inspection memo on the spot and placed a copy of it on the record. The Court invited objections from both the paties but no objection was filed. The Court again gave an opportunity for arguments which the plaintiff did not avail. ( 12 ) WHEN the contents of the inspection note prepared by the 1st Appellate Court on 30. 1. 1997 are examined in the light of the above rulings, it is found that the Court has confined itself to the facts found by a visual inspection of the premises. In the inspection note the Court has not expressed any opinion and has not drawn any inferences. The Court merely put two questions to the plaintiff. One was regarding the telephone number and the other was relating to pair of shoes which were found there. Putting two questions to the plaintiff can hardly be described as a crossexamination of the plaintiff. On the contrary it shows that the Court very fairly gave an opportunity to the plaintiff to clarify certain matters. All the inferences which have been drawn by the learned Judge are given in the judgment and the inspection report is confined to the facts noted on the spot. ( 13 ) THIS Court has carefully perused the judgment of the trial Court and the 1st appellate Court. As already stated above, there were only two witnesses from the side of the plaintiff and one witness from the side of the defendant. Therefore it was almost a case of oath against oath. The trial Court itself had based its judgment on the report dated 16. 8. 1994 of Santosh Kumar Srivastava, Civil amin, Jhansi. The 1st Appellate Court has considered the Amins report and has given reasons for rejecting the same. The 1st Appellate court has also discussed the evidence of sanjiv Kumar Jain P. W. 1 and has given reasons for disbelieving the witness. 8. 1994 of Santosh Kumar Srivastava, Civil amin, Jhansi. The 1st Appellate Court has considered the Amins report and has given reasons for rejecting the same. The 1st Appellate court has also discussed the evidence of sanjiv Kumar Jain P. W. 1 and has given reasons for disbelieving the witness. A finding has been recorded that the statement of Sanjiv kumar Jain is false. This observation has been made at page 4 of the impugned judgment. The Court below has also considered the evidence of plaintiff 1. A Sidiqui. The evidence of Krishna Nand D. W. 1 has been believed at page 6 of the impugned judgment. It appears that the plaintiff relied very much on the circumstance that he is being paid Site compensatory Allowance. The 1st Appellate Court has rightly observed that plaintiff LA. Siddiqui is residing in the city of Jhansi and has drawn site Compensatory Allowance against the rules and thereby he had played fraud on the department, therefore it is clear that the 1st appellate Court did not base its judgment solely on the contents of the site inspection memo. On the contrary the 1st Appellate Court has discussed all the oral and documentary evidence which was available on the record and he has carefully weighed the circumstantial evidence. It is true that a major portion of the judgment is devoted to the contents of the site inspection memo but it cannot be said that the judgment is based solely on the contents of the site inspection memo. ( 14 ) ACCORDING to plaintiff I. A. Siddiqui. he himself was residing in the quarter allotted to him alongwith members of his family. The case of the defendants was that Shri Siddiqui has given exclusive possession of the quarter to one Munni Lal who is a Hindu whereas the plaintiff is Mohammedan. The 1st Appellate court has rightly pointed out that the words shubh Labh were found written on the Almirah, stickers of Ganesh Ji and Laxmi Ji were found affixed. Happy Deepawali was found written at two places, Calendars of Krishna Ji and shankar Ji were found hanging on the doors of the kitchen window. Some greeting cards addressed to Deepak, Kambali, Preeti and mayur Gupta were found hanging on the wall of the bed-room. Happy Deepawali was found written at two places, Calendars of Krishna Ji and shankar Ji were found hanging on the doors of the kitchen window. Some greeting cards addressed to Deepak, Kambali, Preeti and mayur Gupta were found hanging on the wall of the bed-room. From these facts the 1st appellate Court came to the conclusion that the house is occupied by a Hindu and not by a Mohammedan. ( 15 ) AFTER a careful perusal of the record this Court comes to the conclusion that the 1st Appellate Court did not transgress the limitations imposed by Order 18, Rule 18, c. P. C. This Court further finds that the defendants made a prayer for site inspection after the close of arguments to which the plaintiffs Counsel agreed and the inspection was made in their presence. Therefore, there is nothing irregular and illegal in the proceedings. In view of the above discussion, the second appeal is dismissed with costs throughout. Appeal dismissed. .