JUDGMENT : Sahidullah Munshi, J. 1. This revisional application is directed against Order dated 4th March, 2016 and order dated 2nd May, 2016, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sealdah, in Ejectment Case No.5 of 2010. Defendant is a petitioner before this Court. Plaintiffs/opposite parties filed a suit being Ejectment Suit No.107 of 2007 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sealdah. On transfer before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), additional Court, the suit was re-numbered as Ejectment Case No.5 of 2010. The said suit was filed on the grounds of reasonable requirement, default and building and re-building. After entering appearance in the suit the defendant filed his written statement. Plaintiff filed their list of documents with the plaint. The defendant also filed its list of documents relied upon by it in the suit. In the said suit the plaintiffs filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of plaint. The plaint was allowed to be amended vide order dated 18th September, 2015. The plaintiffs filed their amended plaint on 1st October, 2015 and the defendant filed his additional written statement on 4th January, 2016. 2. The plaintiffs have stated in paragraph 15 of their plaint about the reasonable requirement of the flat tenanted of the defendant for their own use and occupation. It has been stated that the plaintiffs are in need of space for their own residence as also for setting up their business in the suit premises. At present, the plaintiffs and their family accommodated in a licensed flat at 4th floor of premises no.18, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata – 700020 which is not sufficient for the family and that apart, plaintiff maintains a godown in a rented accommodation in room no.26 measuring about 500 sq.ft. and maintained their office in similar rented accommodation at room no.71 at premises no.209, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017. In paragraph 16 the plaintiff has stated that due to shortage of plaintiff’s present accommodation at 18 and 18/1, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata – 700020, the plaintiff no.4 has been compelled to take one rented accommodation being flat no.1, E.C. 1st floor at premises no.5/1/1B, Dr. In paragraph 16 the plaintiff has stated that due to shortage of plaintiff’s present accommodation at 18 and 18/1, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata – 700020, the plaintiff no.4 has been compelled to take one rented accommodation being flat no.1, E.C. 1st floor at premises no.5/1/1B, Dr. R.K. Mukherjee Sarani, Kolkata – 700019 and the plaintiff no.4, in spite of his financial hardship, is being compelled to pay Rs.44,000/- (Rupees Forty Four Thousand) only, as monthly rent for his tenanted accommodation. The plaintiff no.4 wants to shift his family in their own premises after suitable arrangement in the building afresh and for which the plaintiffs required the entire building at 57, Shakespeare Sarani, which is the suit premises. 3. In answer to the averments made in paragraph 16 of the amended plaint filed by the plaintiff, the defendant has said that plaintiff’s requirement is not reasonable and it has said that the plaintiffs own several residential and commercial premises and one of such properties owned by the wife of plaintiff no.4 is the famous Bagri Market at Canning Street, Kolkata – 700001 which contains hundreds of residential flats and hundreds of commercial offices and shops. It has been alleged by the defendant that accommodation at premises no.5/1/1B, Dr. R.K. Mukherjee Sarani, Kolkata – 700019, has been acquired by the plaintiff no.4 and his wife during the pendency of the suit while most part of the suit premises at 57, Theatre Road, is lying vacant. It has been stated that the plaintiff no.4 has purchased the aforesaid 5/1/1B, Dr. R.K. Mukherjee Sarani premises in the name of his reliable person and the said plaintiff no.4 produced himself as tenant under him for the purpose of misleading and showing exclusive requirement for the purpose of the suit. It has been stated that accommodation in plenty is available at the suit premises but, even then the plaintiffs have filed the suit for ejectment for reasonable requirement. The requirements of the plaintiff have been denied by the defendant. For ascertaining the actual accommodation available to the plaintiffs in the suit premises and also in the premises where they are residing at present, the plaintiffs filed an application for local inspection under the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. For ascertaining the actual accommodation available to the plaintiffs in the suit premises and also in the premises where they are residing at present, the plaintiffs filed an application for local inspection under the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As a result, the plaintiffs prayed for appointment of Advocate Commissioner for holding inspection at premises no.57, Theatre Road, now known as Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700017 and also at premises no.18, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata – 700020. The said application was filed on 05.02.2016. the defendant/petitioner filed a written objection-cum-application for additional points for local inspection stating that the plaintiffs have under their possession and have been occupying several other properties as owner and have been running their business and also residing there. The defendant-petitioner gave a list of five properties at Kolkata. The defendant’s said application-cum-objection has not been annexed to the revisional application. However, a copy of the said written objection-cum-application has been annexed to the written notes of arguments filed by the defendant/petitioner before this Court. From the said objection-cum-application it appears that the said five properties are – (1) Premises no.17, Taratala Road, Kolkata – 700088, in the name and style of M/s. Vedika Mechinery Pvt. Ltd. And also at the same premises in the name and style of Vedika Exports Tea Pvt. Ltd. (2) 49/1, Diamond Harbour Road, Kolkata – 700027, in the name and style of M/s. Vedika Exports Tea Pvt. Ltd. (3) 209, A.J.C. Bose Road, Karnani Estate, Kolkata – 70017, room nos.26 and 71. (4) 5/1/1B, Dr. R.K. Mukherjee Sarani, Kolkata – 700019. (5) 71, Canning Street, Kolkata – 700001. It known as Bagri Market. 4. While mentioning for additional points for local inspection in the said written objection-cum-application, it appears that so far premises no.17, Taratala Road is concerned, the petitioner itself pointed out that the same is a factory shed. Similarly, 49/1, Diamond Harbour Road, is also factory shed. 209, A.J.C. Bose Road, is a godown and premises no.71, Canning Street, residential-cum-commercial accommodation rented out to various people. Defendant sought for inspection to find out vacant accommodation, if any, available there. Similarly, 49/1, Diamond Harbour Road, is also factory shed. 209, A.J.C. Bose Road, is a godown and premises no.71, Canning Street, residential-cum-commercial accommodation rented out to various people. Defendant sought for inspection to find out vacant accommodation, if any, available there. On the basis of the said application and the prayers made by the plaintiff for inspection of two premises, namely, 57, Theatre Road and 18, Sarat Bose Road and the prayer made by the defendants for five other premises, the learned Court below passed the impugned order on 4th March, 2016. By the order impugned the learned Court below has held excepting the fourth address, namely, 5/1/1B, Dr. R.K. Mukherjee Sarani, Kolkata – 700019 and the suit premises i.e., 57, Theatre Road, the other premises in respect of which inspection has been sought for by the defendant does not show that any residential accommodation is available there, as they are exclusively meant for industrial purpose. The learned Court below has held that requirement of the plaintiff is purely residential. Therefore, the defendant cannot ask for inspection of commercial units. By the order impugned, the learned Court below has held that as the requirement is purely residential, there is no necessity at all to hold the local inspection with respect to commercial units. But, since the fourth address mentioned by the defendant appear to be residential flats for which there is no impediment to allow local inspection. Accordingly, the learned Court below, by the aforesaid order dated 4th March, 2016, directed local inspection in respect of premises no.5/1/1B, Dr. R.K. Mukherjee Sarani, Kolkata – 700019, one out of the five premises for which inspection was sought for by the defendant. 5. From the aforesaid order dated 4th March, 2016, it appears that the learned Court below has come to a conclusion to appoint local inspection Commissioner for inspection of premises no.5/1/1B, Dr. R.K. Mukherjee Sarani, Kolkata – 700019, which is one out of the five premises in respect of which inspection was sought for. The learned Court below has held that it is the admitted position that excepting the fourth item, other properties are of commercial nature. Therefore, inspection is not necessary in respect of the suit premises which does not yield any residential scope. The learned Court below has held that it is the admitted position that excepting the fourth item, other properties are of commercial nature. Therefore, inspection is not necessary in respect of the suit premises which does not yield any residential scope. That apart, the defendant itself has mentioned that premises no.17, Taratala Road, is a factory shed, premises no.49/1, Diamond Harbour Road, is also a factory shed. Premises no.209, A.J.C. Bose Road, is a godown and Karnani Estate at Bagri Market, is also occupied, rented out partly for commercial purpose and partly for residential purpose. Therefore, learned Court below has not committed any error in holding that no inspection will endure to the benefit of the defendant to prove that the plaintiff has reasonable accommodation in those premises. According to the defendant itself, the said four premises are already being occupied by some concerns and that apart, what the learned Court below has not mentioned in its order is that while filing the list of documents with the written statement the plaintiffs never mentioned anything about the accommodations of the plaintiffs. It has also not been pointed out that there is anything prima facie available on record to believe that the plaintiffs are the owners of those premises within the same Municipal Corporation or Municipality under which the suit premises is situated save and except the averment made in the additional written statement that the plaintiff no.4 and his wife purchased 5/1/1B, Dr. R.K. Mukherjee Sarani. In this perspective it cannot be said that the learned Court below has committed erroneous exercise of jurisdiction so that this Court, in revision, can interfere with the power exercised by the Court below under the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure by appointing local inspection Commissioner for the purpose of inspection. Therefore, according to the order passed on 4th March, 2016, the Commissioner appointed by the Court below will continue with the inspection. Learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff/opposite party submitted that the application-cum-written objection filed by the defendant should be treated to be an independent application for consideration of its prayer for inspection of five premises. However, learned Court below has rightly rejected the prayer of inspection of all those four premises because no materials are available on the suit file before the learned Court below. However, learned Court below has rightly rejected the prayer of inspection of all those four premises because no materials are available on the suit file before the learned Court below. There is nothing on record to show prima facie that plaintiffs are either owners of those properties or that they are in occupation thereof. Learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff/opposite party further submitted that the fourth premises only required inspection because it is necessary to determine whether the plaintiffs have any excess accommodation in the suit premises or not and, therefore, the leaned Court below has rightly allowed inspection in respect of the fourth item as mentioned in the defendant’s application-cum-written objection. Learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff/opposite party further submitted that the 2nd order dated 2nd May, 2016 has rightly been passed by the learned Court below by rejecting the defendant/petitioner’s application for local inspection as the said application cannot be filed at a subsequent stage when, admittedly, same prayer and averments were made in the earlier written objection cum application to the plaintiff’s application under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure and when orders had already been passed. 6. Therefore, the learned Court below rightly held that the subsequent application filed by the defendant under Order XXXIX Rule 7 is not maintainable and, the same has been rightly rejected. No erroneous exercise of jurisdiction and/or power has been made by the learned Court below while rejecting the plaintiff’s application under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the order dated 2nd May, 2016. In respect of his submission the learned advocate for the plaintiff/opposite party relied on a decision in the case of Ratan Kumar Bera & Ors. – Vs. – Jyotirindra Nath Bera & Ors. reported in 2016 (1) ICC 954 (Cal). 7. On going through the said decision this Court is satisfied that order earlier passed in the selfsame proceeding principle of resjudicata applies at the interlocutory stage of a proceeding if similar prayers are being made at a subsequent stage of a proceeding when admittedly such prayer has been rejected by the Court upon consideration of the materials on record. 8. There is, however one omission has occurred in the impugned order dated 4th March, 2016. 8. There is, however one omission has occurred in the impugned order dated 4th March, 2016. In the first paragraph of the said order the learned Court below mentioned that the plaintiff has prayed for appointment of local inspection Commissioner in order to make a local inspection as to plaintiffs’ accommodation at the suit premises. Then again, he mentions “heard both the sides and I am inclined to hold that the local inspection is very much vital for finding out the exact ground situation at the suit premises.” On perusal of the entire impugned order dated 4th March, 2016 it does not appear that the learned Court below has mentioned anywhere about the carriage of inspection at the suit premises. In the concluding part of the order the learned Court below mentioned “accordingly, I am inclined to allow the local inspection as prayed by the defendant but only with respect to find out plaintiff’s available accommodation and local feature at 5/1/1B, Dr. R.K. Mukherjee Sarani, Kolkata – 700019.” The conclusion appears to be not in conformity with the finding at the earlier part of the order. However, neither the plaintiff/opposite party has challenged this order, nor the defendant has prayed for inspection of the suit premises. This does not appear even from the subsequent application which has been filed by the defendant on the basis of which the order dated 2nd May, 2016 has been passed. No ground has been taken by the defendant in their revisional application as regards silence of the Court below with regard to inspection of the suit premises. 9. Revisional application partly succeeds and the same is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the local inspection Commissioner issued by the learned Court below by order dated 4th March, 2016 shall also inspect the suit premises, i.e., 57, Theatre Road, Kolkata, by the selfsame local inspection Commissioner.