JUDGMENT Sanjib Banerjee, J. 1. The order impugned does not call for any interference. The revisional petitioner says that before them appointment of a local commissioner under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code, it is imperative that notice of the relevant application be given to the other side. The petitioner says that despite the petitioner objecting to any order being made under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code, the Trial Court merely permitted the petitioner to raise a subsequent objection to any report that may be filed by the commissioner without going into the petitioner's objection as to the maintainability of the interlocutory application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code. The petitioner says that the nature of inspection was such that it required an expert to undertake the exercise and the Court failed to take into account that a lawyer was not best suited for such exercise. The petitioner refers to the schedules to the plaint, including Schedule C thereto, and suggests that the petitioner ought to have been heard as to why no order of inspection could not have been passed in the circumstances. 2. The petitioner refers the decision reported in (1995) 2 Cal. L.J. 66 for the proposition that a jurisdictional error is committed by the Trial Court if the Trial Court passes an order under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code without giving notice to the other parties. 3. Order 39 Rule 8 of the Code provides for notice to be issued prior to the Court passing any order under Rules 6 or 7 of Order 39. However, Order 39 Rule 8(3) carves out an exception such that in a suitable case, where it appears that the object of making the relevant order would be defeated by delay, an order may be made before issuing notice to the other parties to an application under Order 39 Rules 6 or 7 of the Code. 4. In the order impugned herein, the Trial Court recorded that it was of the opinion that local inspection was necessary to ensure that the position obtaining at the suit premises was not changed. Though the order could have been better worded to make the case fall within the exception as recognized in sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of Order 39 of the Code, there appears to be substantial compliance with the relevant provision. 5. Though the order could have been better worded to make the case fall within the exception as recognized in sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of Order 39 of the Code, there appears to be substantial compliance with the relevant provision. 5. It appears from the plaint that the case carried to Court was that the licences were attempting to make some construction at a part of the suit premises not covered by the licence. The plaintiffs applied for a local inspection in such circumstances and the Court felt that the purpose of the application would be defeated unless an inspection was immediately conducted to ascertain the position at the suit property. 6. The assumption of jurisdiction by the Trial Court was not erroneous; nor does it appear that the Court acted with material irregularity in passing an order and leaving the petitioner herein only to challenge the commissioner's report on whatever grounds that may be available for such challenge. 7. C.O. No. 2276 of 2012 is dismissed. 8. There will be no order as to costs. 9. It is made clear that the desirability of having an advocate-commissioner appointed to undertake the inspection has not been gone into and nothing in this order should preclude the petitioner here from raising any objection or challenge to the report, if the petitioner herein is otherwise so entitled. Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, will be made available to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.