Short Note : 1. The plaintiff-applicant has filed the suit for declaration of title in respect of suit Chabutra and for issuance of permanent injunction. The defendant non-applicant denied the claim of the plaintiff-applicant and contended that the suit property belongs to the State of Madhya Pradesh. During the pendency of this suit, Shri Sugan Chand Jain, Advocate was appointed as Commissioner. The Commissioner submitted report. Thereafter the plaintiff applied to the Court for examining the Commissioner in connection with the report. This application has been rejected by the impugned order. Hence this revision. Held : Shri Sugan Chand Jain is not an ordinary witness. He is Commissioner in the case. Therefore, when the plaintiff-applicant wanted to examine him in connection with respect to the report submitted by him in the case, it was necessary on the part of the Court to have summoned him in accordance with law. There is no provision in the Civil Procedure Code for passing any oral order after writing an order on order sheet. Therefore, reference to the alleged oral order passed by the learned trial Judge in the impugned order is entirely misconceived. It is being made clear hereby that reliance on any supposed oral orders cannot be permitted. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the present case. I deem it fit to direct that Shri Sugan Chand Jain, Advocate will be summoned duly by the Court and his statement will be recorded in accordance with law. Revision allowed.