Order XXXIX Rule 7 CPC permits local inspection to assist adjudication of temporary injunction applications.

The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction concerning an abadi plot forming part of Araji Nos. 2441 and 2442 at Village Sisarma, District Udaipur, claiming possession under a patta dated 07.12.1975 allegedly issued in favour of his late father.

He alleged encroachment by respondent No. 1 and sought temporary injunctive relief, for which the Trial Court granted ad interim protection on 26.05.2026.

Respondent No. 1 thereafter applied under Order XXXIX Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC for appointment of a Commissioner to inspect the site, record its physical features, measurements and boundaries, and submit photographs.

The Trial Court allowed the application on 30.05.2026 and appointed an Advocate Commissioner to conduct the inspection in the presence of both parties.

The petitioner challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, contending that the commission amounted to an impermissible collection of evidence concerning disputed possession, identity, measurement, boundaries and encroachment.

Whether the Trial Court could appoint an Advocate Commissioner under Order XXXIX Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC to inspect the suit property and record its existing physical features, measurements and boundaries while the application for temporary injunction remained pending.

Whether the appointment of the Commissioner amounted to permitting respondent No. 1 to collect evidence or constituted a jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The Court applied Order XXXIX Rule 7 CPC, which permits the Court, where necessary or proper, to make an order for the detention, preservation or inspection of property forming the subject matter of the suit, including authorising a person to enter upon land and inspect or conduct measurements.

Section 151 CPC preserves the inherent powers of the Court to make orders necessary for the ends of justice.

The Court further considered the principles governing temporary injunctions under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and the limited scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

A local inspection under Order XXXIX Rule 7 may assist the Court in ascertaining the existing factual condition of the property at the interlocutory stage; it does not determine substantive rights, replace admissible evidence at trial, or by itself establish possession, title or encroachment.

The Trial Court found that the dispute involved the existing physical condition, measurements and boundaries of the property and that the position at the site was unclear.

Since the application for temporary injunction had not been finally decided, obtaining an objective report of the physical features through local inspection was considered relevant to an informed determination of the interlocutory relief.

The High Court held that the commission was not appointed to decide possession, title or encroachment, nor did the report relieve either party from proving its case through independent and admissible evidence during trial.

Accordingly, the inspection fell within the scope of Order XXXIX Rule 7 CPC and the Trial Court’s discretion was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

No jurisdictional error, patent illegality or material irregularity was established to justify interference under Article 227.

It held that the order was within the ambit of Order XXXIX Rule 7 CPC and did not amount to impermissible collection of evidence.

The writ petition was dismissed, and the stay application and all pending applications were also disposed of.