JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - The Plaintiff has preferred this revision against the order dated 14-2-1978 of the Subordinate Judge, Sundargarh in Title Suit No. 7/44 of 1968. 2. In this case, a commissioner had been appointed to demarcate the suit land and to submit his report to that effect to the Court below. From the lower Court record it appears that the commissioner had not submitted the said report till 2l-1-1978. On 21-1-1978 the Court directed the case to be put up on 14-2-1978. awaiting the said report. It appears that the commissioners' report dated 12-1-1978 to the above effect was filed in the Court on 7-2-1978. On 14-2.1978, when the case was taken up for orders, a petition on behalf of the Plaintiff was filed asking for time to enable the Plaintiff to prefer objection against the said report. The Court instead of fixing a clear date for that purpose ordered the case to be put on 13-3-1978 both for filing the said objection and also for hearing of lathe suit on that date. The Plaintiff has preferred this revision against the said order. 3. Mr. Rath, the learned Counsel for the opposite party, has challenged the maintainability of this civil revision. He contends that as the impugned order cannot be regarded as "a case decided" within the meaning of that expression in Section 115. Code of Civil Procedure, this civil revision is not maintainable. By the amendment of the CPC in 1976, Section 115 of the Code has been amended by the addition of a proviso to the main section, Sub-section (2) thereto, and an explanation of the expression "any case which has been decided". By addition the aforesaid explanation to Section 115, to scope and ambit of a revision to this Court have been widened, and the limitation which was put on the expression "any case which has been decided" in the old Section 115, CPC as per the decision reported in Baldevdas Shivlal and Another Vs. Filmistan Distributors (India) P. Ltd. and Others. which was based on the unamended Section 115, no longer holds good in view of the amended provision of this section. In this connection the decision of this Court in Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajarishi Exports (P) Ltd. may be seen. 4. Filmistan Distributors (India) P. Ltd. and Others. which was based on the unamended Section 115, no longer holds good in view of the amended provision of this section. In this connection the decision of this Court in Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajarishi Exports (P) Ltd. may be seen. 4. This Court in Civil Revision No. 227 of 1973 arising out of this suit directed the Court below to frame an issue to the following effect: Whether the Plaintiff has title to the property marked as C.D.E and F in the map attached to the plaint and whether the Defendant had illegally trespassed on any portion of it? It also appears from the said order that this Court directed that a Commissioner should be appointed to demarcate the land in question and submit his report to the trial Court. Thereafter the Court would proceed to hear the objection on the Commissioner's report and after recording his finding on that matter the Court would fix a date for hearing and thereafter expeditiously dispose of the case. The direction of this Court in that civil revision is in consonance with the provisions of Order 26, Rule 10. Code of Civil Procedure. From the provision of Rule 10 it is evident that after the Commissioner's report is received a party should be given an opportunity to contest that report for if the Commissioner's report is accepted without objection and the Court is not dissatisfied with the proceedings of the Commissioner, it cannot depute another Commissioner for local inspection, which can be spelled out from Sub-rule (3) of Rule 10 of Order 26, Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the Court below should have acted in accordance with the direction contained in Civil Revision No. 227 of 1973 and allowed a short time to the Plaintiff to file his objection and to examine the Commissioner, if he so wanted. The order of the Court fixing the hearing of the case on the date on which the Plaintiff has been asked to file the objection against the Commissioner's report does not appear to be in accordance with the direction of this Court and the wholesome provision to this effect in the Code. 5. On the above considerations, the impugned order is set aside. 5. On the above considerations, the impugned order is set aside. As the suit has become very old, the Court shall thereafter proceed to dispose of the suit in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. The Court should fix a very short date to enable the Plaintiff to prefer his objection. The Plaintiff should also be ready to examine the Commissioner, if he so desires, within a very short time and he should medicate his desire to that effect in the objection petition to be filed on the next date. No laxity ill granting adjournments should be shown after giving opportunity to the above effect. 6. The civil revision is allowed, but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. The L.C.R. be sent back immediately. Revision allowed. Final Result : Dismissed