MALAY KUMAR BASU, J. ( 1 ) THIS revisional application is directed against the order No. 127 dated 23. 4. 1998 passed by the Id. Assistant district Judge. 1st Court, Alipur in Title Suit No. 8 of 1989. By this order the Id. Judge dismissed a petition dated 17. 4. 1996 filed by the defendant (the present revisional applicant) "for an order allowing local inspection in respect of a flat in the first floor of Premises No. 7c, Belvedere Road in order to take measurement and on other relevant features regarding plaintiffs accommodation in that flat. By an earlier application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the C. P. C. the plaintiff of the suit (the present O. Ps.) prayed for an order directing local inspection to be held of the ground floor of that premises No. 7c, Belvedere Road and that application of the plaintiff was allowed and an Advocate-Commissioner had been appointed to hold such local inspection of the said premises as per the points specified in the Writ of local inspection. It was the case of the defendant while filing this said application that at the time of holding the said local inspection as prayed for by the plaintiff the Id. Advocate-Commissioner pleaded his inability to take measurement of the rooms of the first floor of that house on the plea that such a point was not noted in the Writ of Commission. According to the defendant-petitioner, such an inspection being necessary for the purpose of bringing the real picture regarding accommodation of both the parties, his prayer ought to have been allowed by the court below and a local inspection in that line ought to have been held by the Commissioner for the purpose of enabling the court to have all the cards on the table for determining the real point in controversy between the parties. ( 2 ) THE court below rejected this prayer of the defendant on the ground that when the plaintiffs' prayer for local inspection was being heard and considered, the defendant never made any whisper about any such necessity and remained totally silent and such a point having not been mentioned in the Writ of Commission the Id. Commissioner also was not in a position to hold any inspection in that line and even thereafter when the Id. Commissioner also was not in a position to hold any inspection in that line and even thereafter when the Id. Commissioner has submitted his report after his local inspection was over, the defendant did not raise any objection against the same and after the passage of a longtime he has come with such a prayer and from this his motive can be clearly gauged, namely, to get the hearing of the matter delayed as far as possible. According to the id. Trial Judge this was nothing but a clever tactic of the defendant for deferring the hearing of the main suit and harassing the plaintiff-landlord and further he also found the petition to be vague and unjustified and in view of all these reasons he rejected the petition. ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by this order the defendant has preferred this revisional application challenging that order as erroneous and illegal. According to him the Id. Judge has acted with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction and therefore, according to the applicant, that order of the Trial Judge should be set aside. ( 4 ) THE contention of the Id. Advocate for the applicant is that such a local inspection was absolutely necessary for the purpose of adjudication of. the real points in controversy between the parties and if it is allowed to be made, neither of the parties will' be prejudiced in any way. ( 5 ) MR. Talukdar, the Id. Advocate of the plaintiff-0. P. has vehemently opposed this petition and has contended that the question of holding of any such inspection in respect of the first floor of the suit house could not arise and all and the Id. Trial Judge was perfectly Justified in rejecting such a prayer. According to him, in the first place, the flat of the first floor of that house in respect of which this inspection was sought for belonged to a. different person, namely. M. L. Dalmia and Co. who was in possession thereof and that flat being not the subject-matter of the present suit and the possessor of that flat being a third party such an inspection was not at all permissible under the law. M. L. Dalmia and Co. who was in possession thereof and that flat being not the subject-matter of the present suit and the possessor of that flat being a third party such an inspection was not at all permissible under the law. In the second place, the defendant never raised such a question at the time when an order was passed by the court below allowing the plaintiffs' prayer lor local inspection and appointing an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose and after passage of long years he has filed this prayer with the ulterior motive to delay and defer the hearing of the main suit for his eviction. ( 6 ) AS against the first point canvassed by the 0. P. mentioned-above, (he contention of the defendant is that the alleged tenancy in respect of the first-floor of the suit house is a sham tenancy created by the plaintiff for the purpose of this suit and practically there is no existence of any person like 'm. L. Dalmia and Co. and this flat is actually under the occupation of the plaintiff (vide page 11 of the W. S. 3 Para ). Mr. Chatterjee contends that in view of the matter a local inspection of this flat as prayed for by his client may be allowed by this court without thereby entailing any resistance from the other side. ( 7 ) BUT this is far from acceptable. This is a contenuous -issue of fact and without taking evidence of both sides the defendant's version cannot be taken as correct and if his statement is accepted and it is presumed that the said 'm/s. Dalmia and Co. is none but the plaintiff himself, then that will not be in consonance with the rules of law or prudence. ( 8 ) MR. Chatterjee's further submission also is found to be absurd that iet such a commission be issued first and, if, when the Id. Commissioner will go to the locale for inspection, he is resisted by the inmates at the said flat in question, then such a move may be given a go-by. what miligates against the established legal principles cannot be ordered to be done by a court of law. Commissioner will go to the locale for inspection, he is resisted by the inmates at the said flat in question, then such a move may be given a go-by. what miligates against the established legal principles cannot be ordered to be done by a court of law. The legal position does not recognise an act of a court issuing a writ of local inspection in respect of any property or place which does not form the subject-matter of the suit concerned, for the simple reason, that the owner of such a property or place being a third party cannot be bound by any order of the court. ( 9 ) THE contention of Mr. Talukdar appears quite pertinent that the first-floor flat belonging to a third party who is not a party to this suit and is a stranger cannot be made the subject-matter of local inspection in connection with this suit and therefore on this score alone the application is liable to be rejected and the Court below not appear to have committed any error by rejecting the same. ( 10 ) I do not find any reason for Interfering with the impugned order and accordingly, the same be affirmed and the revisional application be dismissed. ( 11 ) ALL interim orders, if any, be vacated. ( 12 ) XEROX certified copies, if applied for. may be supplied as early as possible.