1. This a Letters Patent Appeal against the decree of a learned Judge of this Court refusing the appeal of one Jaggu Mal who was plaintiff in one suit and defendant in the other. These suits related chiefly to parnalas and an application was jointly made by the parties to the Munsif asking him to make an inspection of the locality to see and decide the matters in question and in place of evidence the Munsif might ask questions 'on the spot. Accordingly, the Munsif made a decision and an appeal was brought by Jaggu Mal against that decision. We agree with the learned Judge of this Court in holding that it was not open to Jaggu Mal to bring in an appeal after he had agreed to the Munsif deciding the case in the manner mentioned above. It is not open to a party to ask for a departure from the ordinary course of procedure and require a Court to decide questions of fact in this manner by local inspection and oral statements on the spot, and then come forward and ask an appellate Court to decide the same questions. For one thing, there is no evidence on the record which would enable an appellate Court to come to a decision. It was argued that an appellate Court might make a local inspection. Firstly, an appellate Court is not bound to make any local inspection and secondly, even if such an inspection were made, the oral statements on the spot would naturally be different from those made to the Court of first instance. Further, the impression created on the mind of the Munsif would be possibly different from that created on the mind of the appellate Court. Accordingly, we dismiss this Letters Patent Appeal.