CRP 412/2006 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HN SARMA Heard Mr P Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner. The challenge made in this revision petition is the Judgment and Order dated 31.7.2006 passed in Title Suit No 39/2004 passed by the learned Civ il Judge Munsiff No 1, Cachar, Silchar, thereby decreeing the suit of the plaint iff, filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The further challen ge made by the petitioner in this petition is an order-dated 31.3.2006 passed by the learned trial Court in the aforesaid suit rejecting the prayer for local in spection of the suit land. At the time of hearing, Mr Roy has submitted that he has abandoned the challenge of the Judgment and order dated 31.7.2006 but confin es to his challenge to the order-dated 31.3.2006. By the aforesaid order dated 31.3.2006, the learned trial Court rejected the petition filed under Order 18, Rule 18 read with Section 151 of the CPC, praying for inspection of the suit land by the Court. The learned trial Co urt rejected the said prayer on the ground that the suit was fixed for final Jud gment on that very date and the petitioner has prayed for such local inspection at a much belated stage, which do not justify for such local inspection. The plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit claiming for recover y of possession of the suit land, which was delivered to him in execution of the decree passed by the competent Civil Court in Title Execution Case No 1/2003, a fter finalisation of the matter in the second appeal by the High Court. In the a foresaid Execution Case, the decretal land was delivered to the plaintiff/respon dents with the help of armed Police on 18.11.2003 by the bailiff of the Court an d the decree was thus satisfied. However, the defendants along with some rowdy e lements, again dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land on 14.12.2003 by ap plying force which necessitated the plaintiff to institute the suit for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The defendants/petitioners contested the suit by filing written statement in the month of October 2004. Although Mr Roy tried to make out a poin t that the suit land being different from the land to which the petitioner was p ut back in possession in the execution of the decree and is situated on the othe r part of the River Barak, no whisper of such claim has been made either in the written statement, or in the application for the local inspection. There is no p roof of such fact in the suit. In my considered opinion, no jurisdictional error has been made by the learned trial Court in passing the order refusing to inspe ct the suit land locally. The learned counsel has also not challenged the Judgme nt and decree passed in Title Suit No 39/2004 dated 31.7.2006, consequently, thi s Court is not required to make a scrutiny of the validity of the Judgment. A lo cal inspection is required to be made if there is apparent difficulty in identif ication of the suit property and when considered necessary and expedient by a Co urt and in the instant case the learned trial Court rejected the prayer on prope r consideration. In view of the above discussions I do not find any merit in this petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. The interim order stands vacated.