JUDGMENT : Mir Dara Sheko, J. Heard Mr Mukherjee assisted by Mr Biswas representing the petitioners-plaintiffs-landlords (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners), and Mr Nure Zaman assisted by Mr Badsha and Mr Shahid representing the opposite party defendant-tenant. 2. The revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arose due to rejection of an application under Order 39, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure submitted for the second time by the petitioners who have filed the suit for eviction on the grounds of bona fide requirement for accommodating their business. 3. Mr Mukherjee relied upon a decision of learned single Judge of this court in the case of Sk. Ahmed Ali v. Qurresha Bibi & Ors. reported in 2010 (3) CHN (Cal) 435 and also another single Bench decision in the case of Atanu Basak v. Shiba Prasad Mukherjee reported in 2010 (4) CHN (Cal) 221 and criticized the impugned order - Order No.125 dated August 3, 2016 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kalna in Title Suit No.67 of 2009 - by arguing that when the suit for eviction was filed on the grounds of bona fide requirement, then to prove the case of the landlords, local inspection is one of the best methods. Submitted, though such method was sought for, but learned trial court on flimsy grounds rejected the prayer holding that the learned commissioner "is not supposed to give his opinion about the adequacy of goods of business in 'A' schedules suit room in compare to other adjoining shop room." 4. Mr Mukherjee also submitted that if the local inspection commissioner would have answered to the third point, then it would reveal that the suit shop room was left by the opposite party long back under lock and key and he has not been running any more business. 5. Mr Mukherjee also criticized the observations of learned trial court who has held that the petitioners "cannot take help of local inspection of the suit premises for the purpose of obtaining evidence for the suit." Therefore, being fortified by the decisions cited above, he prayed for setting aside the order impugned by allowing the revisional application. 6. Per contra, Mr Nure Zaman supporting the impugned order submitted that the petitioners' prayer is barred by res judicata, since their earlier similar application with identical prayer was rejected by learned trial court. 7. 6. Per contra, Mr Nure Zaman supporting the impugned order submitted that the petitioners' prayer is barred by res judicata, since their earlier similar application with identical prayer was rejected by learned trial court. 7. Further submitted that the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners about remaining of the suit shop room under lock and key is beyond the record which should not be accepted for the purpose of purported local inspection. 8. Mr. Nure Zaman in support of his contention relied upon a Division Bench judgement of this court in the case of The Institution of Engineers (India) & Anr. v. Bishnu Pada Bag & Anr. reported in AIR 1978 Cal. 296 and another Division Bench judgment in the case of Ratan Kumar Bera & Ors. v. Jyotirindra Nath Bera & Ors. reported in 2016 (1) ICC 954 (Cal.) and submitted that the impugned order should be affirmed dismissing the Article 227 application. 9. Perused the cited decisions at the Bar. During course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioners submitted a copy of the certified copy of Order No.44 dated September 19, 2011 passed in Title Suit No.67 of 2009 wherefrom it reveals that the defence against delivery of possession in respect of the suit premises has already been struck off. There is no material before this court to show that the said order dated September 19, 2011 was ever altered; rather from page 24 of this application vide order dated July 8, 2014 in CO No.4185 of 2011 it reveals that revisional application preferred assailing Order No.44 dated September 19, 2011 by the opposite party-tenant was dismissed, meaning thereby, the order striking out of defence against delivery of possession under section 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 subsists. The law is set at rest that in view of the above, the scope of the eviction suit has now become limited. 10. However, in view of the present lis and since the copy of Order No.107 dated July 21, 2015 passed by learned trial court rejecting the first prayer of local inspection submitted by the petitioners is made available before this court, this court took the opportunity to look into the grounds on which learned trial court decided to reject the earlier prayer. 11. 11. Relevant portion from Order No. 107 dated July 21, 2015 is set out below:- ".......In the point no.1 of his application for local inspection the plaintiffs require the Advocate Commissioner to see whether there is any room to the adjoining east of the 'A' schedule mentioned suit room and if the same is found, to give its proper measurement by length and breadth. Plaintiffs also require the Advocate Commissioner go give his opinion whether the room to the adjoining east to 'A' schedule suit room is having sufficient space for their business purpose. In the point no.2 the plaintiffs require the commissioner to make his report whether the room situated to the adjoining east of A schedule room appears to be very much insufficient in space in relation to its nature of use." 12. Therefore, from the above-quoted portion of the order dated July 21, 2015 it reveals that learned trial court rejected the prayer of local inspection discarding to invite the opinion of the learned commissioner which was proposed to bring on record through local inspection. 13. Though learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that at present there has become changed circumstances, since the suit shop room has been left by the opposite party under lock and key, since long, but admittedly such submission is beyond the pleadings. Therefore, such alleged changed circumstances are not accepted to give any observation favouring the petitioners until and unless such changed circumstances, if any, be incorporated in the pleadings. 14. Now looking to the points of such second application proposing local inspection, this court has no second view but to observe that virtually the same are the replica in some other mode of the points proposed to be inspected by submitting the first application. It is redundant to say that for the purpose of proving ground of reasonable requirement local inspection may be one of the best methods. But in the name of local inspection, there should not be any order allowing the landlord fishing out or to extract any evidence beyond pleadings. It is redundant to say that for the purpose of proving ground of reasonable requirement local inspection may be one of the best methods. But in the name of local inspection, there should not be any order allowing the landlord fishing out or to extract any evidence beyond pleadings. Therefore, on principle, though this court has no indifference so far as the need of granting prayer of local inspection where the landlords have sought for eviction on the grounds of reasonable requirement, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners by placing reliance of the case reported in 2010 (3) CHN (Cal) 435 (supra) and 2010 (4) CHN (Cal) 221 (supra) being guided by the decision in the case of The Institution of Engineers (India) & Anr. v. Bisnu Pada Bag & Anr. AIR 1978 cal. 296 (supra) and the case of Ratan Kumar Bera & Ors. v. Jyotirindra Nath Bera & Ors. 2016 (1) ICC 954 (Cal.) (supra), this court has no hesitation to ventilate once again that in the name of local inspection any attempt of fishing out of evidence that too beyond pleadings is not permissible under law; and since virtually on the identical points the first prayer of local inspection was rejected, the principle of res judicata shall apply in such second application. 15. In view of the above observations and since learned trial court in rejecting the impugned application of local inspection for the second time almost on the same and identical points, this court finds no lapses or illegality in such decision-making process, specially when there was no changed circumstance on record. Therefore, affirming Order No.125 dated August 3, 2016 passed by learned trial court the revisional application stands dismissed. 16. No order as to costs. 17. The department of this court is directed to communicate a copy of this order to learned court below at once for information. 18. Certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties.