JUDGMENT 1. THIS application for civil revision under section 115 of the code of Civil Procedure is directed against an order passed by the learned Munsif, 1st court, Tamluk by Order No. 111 dated 5th of May, 1979 accepting the report and the field book of the Pleader Commissioner appointed by him in the Title Suit No. 15 of 1973. 2. MR. Chatterjee, counsel for the petitioner has criticised this report as an invalid defective and irregular one because the learned Munsif did not assign any reason for such an order. His contention is that as it is not a reasoned order, the order should be set aside. Mr. Chatterjee argues that if the reasons are not given it will be difficult for party aggrieved by such an order to challenge it. Mr. Chatterjee referred to me a judgment reported in 84 CWN page 130 (Santilata Mitra v. Amal Lahiri ) also passed in an application under Section 115 of the code of Civil Procedure relating to a matter however under Order 39 Rule 7 of the said code. G. N. Ray, J. held therein that a court is required to form a prima facie opinion that a case for further detention, preservation or inspection has been made by a party and for proper action investigation by a commissioner is required to be made. Accordingly, the order passed under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil procedure the party against whom the order is passed is entitled to move this Court and he remanded the matter directing to consider the application under Order 39 rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure on merit afresh and disposed of the said application after giving the reasons. It may be noted here that Ray, J. directed reasons to be given when an order is passed for ordering investigation under Order 39 Rule 7 and not when accepting report under Order 26 Rule 13: moreover an order passed under Order 39 Rule 7 directing an investigation is quite different from an order accepting a report of Pleader Commissioner after investigation. More reasons would have been desirable but desirability does not mean essentiality. 3. More reasons would have been desirable but desirability does not mean essentiality. 3. IN this connection 1 may point out here that so far as civil courts are conceded appointment of Pleader Commissioner and acceptance of their report and the mode thereof have been provided under the Civil rules and Orders which, regulate the civil proceedings in the courts below. Under rule 243 of the Civil Rules and Orders provision has been made for acceptance of such report. The said Rule 243 runs as follows; - "the Court shall consider the objections, if any, of the several parties to the report of the Commissioner and may accept the report or any portion of it or pass such orders as it thinks fit under Order 26 r. 10 (3) of the Code of civil Procedure. " 4. ORDER 26 Rule 10 (3) of the Code of civil Procedure runs as follows:- "where the Court is for any reason dissatisfied with the proceedings of the commissioner, it may direct such further enquiry to be made as it shall think fit". I may cite here a judgment reported in air 1949 Madras page 612 (Satyanarayana vs. Suryanarayana) Subbarao, J. held that appointing second Commissioner without assigning any reason why report of previous one was unsatisfactory is against order 26, Rule 10 (3) of the Code of civil Procedure. Order appointing second commissioner without assigning any reason why the report of the previous Commissioner is ignored is not only contrary to the provisions of Order 26 Rule 3 of the code of Civil Procedure but is to be condemned. The learned Judge held that in view of the nature of the provision of the code of Civil Procedure (where it has been stated that the Court will not order further enquiry without giving any reason why such further enquiry is to be made) a report cannot be set aside and further enquiry cannot be directed. The very language of the said provision of the Code of Civil procedure is quite expressive because it enjoins the Court to give reason why further enquiry is to be made, but in case of accepting it such imperatives can hardly arise : Civil Procedure Code is silent too in this regard. It only provides for reasons to be assigned in such matters when further enquiry is directed. 5. MR. It only provides for reasons to be assigned in such matters when further enquiry is directed. 5. MR. Rej contended that the said order does not lack reasons may not be elaborate. It could have been more expressive. 6. AFTER hearing the rival contentions and looking to the order itself I find that the learned Munsif has passed the order after consideration of all the relevant fact that is, what is needed in such a case. If it was a case of rejection he might have been required to give more reasons. Order 26 rule 3 (10) of the Code of Civil Procedure only enjoins reasons to be given when a further enquiry is ordered. But in a case when the learned Munsif considering the objections, and not finding any reason to reject it, is accepting the report I do not think that reasons are to be assigned in the manner as contended before me by Mr. Chatterjee. This order cannot be found fault with as maintained by Mr. Chatterjee. The learned Munsif considers it and considering all the relevant connecting papers he does not find any defect or irregularity to reject it and that he considered the relevant aspects appears from the order itself. I set out the order herein below: "i consider the evidence, report, field-book, case map and the written argument. From such consideration it appears that fix points have been correctly taken and all the principles of survey have been complied with. Accordingly the report, field book are accepted by me. " The learned Munsif considers the evidence, report, field book and the written argument and after consideration of all the relevant papers he came to the opinion that all the principles of survey had been complied with and here "accordingly" means that as he considers that they are all correctly taken then only he directs that the report and the field book are to be accepted. This is an order which has been passed on due consideration by the learned munsif. It is not irregular nor is it defective. I do not think there is any scope for me to interfere with this order. 7. HENCE it is ordered: Application fails. Rule is discharged. Stay order is vacated. No order as to costs. Records go down expeditiously. Rule discharged.