JUDGMENT Malay Kumar Basu, J. 1. This revisional application has been directed against the order No. 33 dated 3rd June, 1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, First Court, Srirampur in Title Suit No. 116/95 under which the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division allowed a prayer for local investigation filed by the plaintiff-O.P in respect of the suit property. Being aggrieved by that order the defendant of the suit that is the present revisional applicant has preferred this petition challenging that order as illegal, erroneous and therefore unsustainable. 2. It is the contention of the revisional applicant that in this case the plaintiff sought a local inspection and his prayer was allowed and a local inspection Commissioner was appointed and the learned Commissioner after going to the locality held an inspection and submitted a report as per the points given in the writ of commission. But, according to him, instead of raising any objection against that report of the learned local inspection Commissioner the plaintiff filed a petition for local investigation and the same has been allowed by the court below unjustifiably. Mr. Basu, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the revisional applicant has contended that this case does not call for any local investigation for the simple reason that the prayer of the plaintiff in his plaint is for declaration of easement right in respect of a particular portion of land marked as B Schedule and C Schedule property and there has been no prayer for declaration of any title or interest in respect of such portions of the suit property. According to him without challenging or getting the report of the local inspection Commissioner set aside the plaintiff cannot make a prayer for local investigation again for the self-same subject matter nor the court can allow any such prayer. In support of this contention Mr. Basu refers to a decision reported in A.I.R 1997 Calcutta 80 wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held that for the purpose of ascertaining the condition of the demised premises the provisions of Order 26 Rule 9 or 10 are not attracted but the provisions of Order 39 Rule 7 are to serve as the remedy. 3. Basu refers to a decision reported in A.I.R 1997 Calcutta 80 wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held that for the purpose of ascertaining the condition of the demised premises the provisions of Order 26 Rule 9 or 10 are not attracted but the provisions of Order 39 Rule 7 are to serve as the remedy. 3. However in this proceeding we are not concerned with the question whether the prayer for local investigation can be held to be maintainable on the face of the local inspection commission report remaining unchallenged. Because the two are altogether different concepts. In local inspection only the existing condition of the suit property is to be found and reported but in local investigation elucidation is required for the purpose of enabling the court to settle a dispute over a particular portion of the suit property and for that purpose sometimes measurement and relayment etc. may be necessary. In case of local inspection the report does not ipso facto become a part of the record and it has got to be proved by means of evidence and if it is made an exhibit admitted into evidence then and then only it can be relied upon. But in case of local investigation the position is quite different. The report of the local investigation Commissioner becomes a part of the record and unless and until it is discarded by the court on the basis of materials on record it continues to remain so. 4. Be that as it may, in the present case the question is whether the prayer for local investigation which has been allowed by the Court below the impugned order was at all called for or required. On a careful perusal of the plaint I find that throughout its length and breadth the simple case of the plaintiff is that he has been enjoying the right of egress and ingress along the 'B' schedule and 'c' schedule portion of the suit property for the purpose of cleansing and taking out of the night soil from his privy with the help of the scavengers and that easement right has now been infringed by the defendant No.1 by means of raising a wall on the 'C' schedule passage and a blockade on the 'B' schedule passage. Hence, in his plaint he prays for a declaration as to his alleged easement right and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from raising such obstruction. 5. Therefore it is not the case of the plaintiff that he seeks any declaratory decree or claims any right, title or interest in any portion of the suit property. That being so, the question of measurement of the plots by a survey passed ex parte appears to be totally uncalled for and unnecessary. It appears from the writ of local inspection issued by the Court below on the basis of which the local inspection was held and report submitted that the learned Commissioner was to ascertain only if there had been any blockade in the B schedule property or whether there had been any obstruction raised on the C schedule property as alleged. It further appears that the learned Commissioner has submitted his report to the effect that he did not find any passage as described in C schedule, nor he found any blockade either thereon or on the B schedule property. Thus the above mentioned question could be determined by means of this report of the local inspection Commissioner and no question of having any local investigation of the same property arises at all. 6. The difference between a local inspection under Order 39 Rule 7 C.P.C. and a local investigation under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. should not be lost sight of. The former has the object of keeping on record the existing condition of the property so that if the same is subjected to any change later on any deterioration or mischief by any party or by any other agency, that can be known by the court if and when desired or required; whereas the purpose of holding a local investigation under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code is to ascertain, collect, or elucidate facts in respect of any matter in dispute, etc., after proper scrutiny, examination and sifting of materials. In the instant case, the plaintiff merely prays for a declaration of easement right in respect of the disputed portion of the suit plot on the plea that the defendant has created obstruction thereon. The question for determination is whether there has been any such obstruction on the said disputed land as alleged. In the instant case, the plaintiff merely prays for a declaration of easement right in respect of the disputed portion of the suit plot on the plea that the defendant has created obstruction thereon. The question for determination is whether there has been any such obstruction on the said disputed land as alleged. To determine such a point a fact finding commission is enough and there is no necessity for getting elucidation on any point by means of investigation by a survey knowing expert. So, local inspection and not local investigation will provide the required remedy to the plaintiff and already there has been such a local inspection at his instance and the report of that inspection is lying on the record. But the plaintiff, for reasons best known to him has never challenged that report of the local inspection Commissioner and, instead, he has preferred the present petition for local investigation which is unwarranted. Under such circumstances, the plaintiffs petition for local investigation appears to be misconceived. But the learned court below failed to assess the legal position correctly and has passed an erroneous order by allowing that petition for local investigation and that has necessitated interference with the same by this court. In the result the revisional application is allowed and the impugned order be set aside. The petition for local investigation in question stands rejected. Revisional application allowed.