JUDGMENT: 1. THIS revisional application is directed against Order No. 17 dated 25th May 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), 1st Court, Alipore, in Title Suit No. 85 of 2007 by which an application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure is rejected. 2. THE plaintiff/opposite party filed a suit for mandatory injunction restraining the petitioners from affixing an iron gate in any portion of the suit passage and/or obstructing and/or disturbing smooth use of the said passage. It is categorically stated in the plaint that the disputed passage is a common passage and the defendants/petitioners cannot put any fetter by affixing an iron gate on the western side of the said passage. According to the defendants/petitioners, the said disputed passage was meant for the sweepers in an earlier point of time but by passage of time it has lost its utility. It is further contended that they are using the said passage for several years and their doors and windows are abutting the said passage. 3. ON the strength of such defence an application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure was taken out by the defendants/petitioners for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the said property for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether the plaintiff/opposite party has access to their premises from the main Corporation Road as well as 7 feet wide passage as also to see whether the doors and windows exists abutting the said passage. 4. TRIAL Court found that the relief, which has been claimed in the suit, does not require any report from an Advocate Commissioner. In other words, it is opined by the trial Court that inspection is not necessary for the purpose of granting relief in the suit. Mrs. Maity, learned Advocate appearing for the defendants/petitioners, vehemently attacks the said order by contending that the reason, assigned by the trial Court, is not supportable. She further submits that inspection is necessary to ascertain the nature of possession by the defendants/petitioners. 5. MR. Bhattacharya, learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiff/opposite party , submits that the defence taken by the petitioners has to be proved by other evidence and inspection is not necessary. 6. IT is undisputed that this is a suit simplicitor for a decree for mandatory injunction restraining the defendants/petitioners from affixing any iron gate on the disputed passage. 5. MR. Bhattacharya, learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiff/opposite party , submits that the defence taken by the petitioners has to be proved by other evidence and inspection is not necessary. 6. IT is undisputed that this is a suit simplicitor for a decree for mandatory injunction restraining the defendants/petitioners from affixing any iron gate on the disputed passage. Mere opening of the doors and windows abutting the said passage does not create any right on the disputed passage. The dispute involved in the suit is with regard to fixation of an iron gate on the disputed passage, which is to be decided by leading evidence, both oral and documentary, by both the parties. The purpose of inspection, as envisaged under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is not for fishing out evidence but for the purpose of actual ascertainment of any question which may arise while adjudicating the suit. Though the reason, assigned by the trial Court, is not supportable but I find that the ultimate decision, which has been taken by the trial Court, cannot be faulted with. 7. FOR the reasons, as aforesaid, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with impugned order. The revisional, therefore, fails. However, there will be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy be supplied to the parties, if applied for, on priority basis.