Court Rules that Local Inspection Under Order XVIII Rule 18 CPC Should Be Conducted After Recording Evidence to Avoid Prejudicing Parties
In a significant decision delivered on September 3, 2026, the Karnataka High Court, presided over by Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil, quashed the memorandum of facts recorded by the Trial Court during a local inspection conducted prematurely in a suit involving a property dispute. The petitioner, Sri H.M. Manu, had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents, Sri Marigowda and another, and also sought temporary injunction. The Trial Court, during the pendency of the temporary injunction application, conducted a site visit and recorded observations concerning possession of the property, which the petitioner challenged as impermissible.
The High Court meticulously examined the scope of the power of local inspection under Order XVIII Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). This provision empowers the Court to inspect any property or thing concerning which a question may arise at any stage of the suit, with the condition that the Court shall record a memorandum of relevant facts observed during the inspection. However, the Court emphasized that this power is to be exercised sparingly and primarily after evidence is recorded.
Drawing upon extensive precedents, including Supreme Court and various High Court judgments, the Court reiterated that local inspection is intended solely as an aid to better understand and appreciate the evidence already on record. It cannot be used to gather new evidence, substitute for witness testimony, or form the sole basis of judgment. The observations made during inspection do not afford parties an opportunity for cross-examination or to challenge the Court's impressions, and hence, cannot be treated as substantive evidence.
In the present case, the Trial Court's premature local inspection-conducted before recording any evidence and while the temporary injunction application was pending-was held to be a procedural irregularity that prejudiced the petitioner. The memorandum of facts recorded included references to possession and involved questioning of persons present at the property, which overstepped the intended scope of inspection and amounted to the Court assuming the role of an unofficial investigator.
The Karnataka High Court accordingly set aside the impugned memorandum of facts recorded on July 18, 2022, and clarified that while local inspection remains a valuable tool for fact-finding, it must be conducted judiciously and at an appropriate stage of the proceedings to ensure fairness and adherence to due process.
This ruling serves as a reminder to trial courts across the country about the correct procedural exercise of local inspection powers under Order XVIII Rule 18 CPC, safeguarding the rights of litigants and maintaining judicial propriety.
Bottom Line:
The power of local inspection under Order XVIII Rule 18 of the CPC must be exercised sparingly, primarily after recording evidence, and cannot be used to gather or substitute evidence. Premature local inspection and reliance on observations before evidence recording may vitiate the fairness of proceedings.
Statutory provision(s):
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XVIII Rule 18
Sri. H.M. Manu v. Sri. Marigowda, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2976510
