JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - Defendants are the Appellants against an order of remand passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Puri, in Title Appeal No. 7/3 of 1980/78. 2. Plaintiffs filed the suit for a declaration of right, title and interest over Ac.0.160 decimals of land appertaining to plot No. 15 under Khata No. 466 of village Baragada and for confirmation of possession, or in the alternative for recovery of possession and for restraining the Defendants from entering into the suit-land. According to the plaint case, plot No. 15 belongs to Behera family. They were possessing portions of the plot by amicable arrangement. Anadi and Biswanath were in possession of Ac.0.090 decimals of land, who sold the same to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs' family while taking possession unauthorisedly occupied another Ac.0.160 decimals from the cast which was laying fallow and was not under occupation of anybody and then brought that Ac.0.160 decimals of land within their campus and made some constructions on the same and, therefore, have been in continuous, uniterrupted possession to the knowledge of the true owner and, as such have acquired title by adverse possession. The Defendants having no right, title or interest created disturbance and, therefore, a proceeding u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was started which terminated in favour of the Defendants. Hence the present suit. 3. The Defendants in their written statement did not dispute the factum of purchase by the Plaintiffs from Behera family of Ac.0.090 decimals from the eastern side. But according to them the disputed Ac.0.160 decimals lying to the fact has been purchased by the Defendants and they are in possession of the same and, therefore, the Plaintiff's case of acquisition of title by adverse possession must be rejected. 4. On there pleadings, the trial court disbelieved the Plaintiffs' ease and found that the Plaintiffs had failed to prove by any reliable evidence that they had any right, title or interest over the suit-land or that they had possessed the land adversely against the interests of the Defendants and their vendors for more than the statutory period and had acquired title by adverse possession. Consequently, the trial court dismissed the suit. 5. Consequently, the trial court dismissed the suit. 5. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge did not consider the evidence adduced in the case, but set aside the judgment of the trial Court and remitted the matter to the trial court to find out first whether the Commissioner's report is to be accepted or rejected and in case the said report is rejected, then it should give fresh opportunity to the parties to take another Commissioner in order to clarify the position as indicated in the judgment. 6. This approach of the lower court in my view, is wholly unwarranted in law. The Commissioner's report; in any case is only an item of evidence. If the trial court has not passed any order accepting or rejecting the same the appellate court could have discussed the matter. The Appellant court could have discussed the evidence apart from the Commissioner's report and could have come to its conclusion one way or the other. There is no doubt, that the appellate court has all the powers or the trial court in the matter of appreciation of evidence. Instead of discoursing the evidence, the appellate court has merely set aside the judgment of the trial court and remitted the matter to the stage of accepting or rejecting to Commissioner's report in the case. As it appears, a pleader-commissioner was deputed in this case and after he submitted his report, objections to the same were given, but the trial court had indicated that the Commissioner's report would be dealt with by it in the final judgment and in fact it has also discussed bout the Commissioner's report in the judgment, though no specific order has been passed. As been stated earlier, the Commissioner's report is merely one item of evidence. A court of fact has to discuss all the evidence on record and them come to its conclusion one way or the other. In my view, the appellate court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in law in not considering the case on the basis of the evidence on record and its order setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and sending the case back on remand is wholly unwarranted in law. 7. In my view, the appellate court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in law in not considering the case on the basis of the evidence on record and its order setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and sending the case back on remand is wholly unwarranted in law. 7. In the result, therefore, I would set aside the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge and remit the title appeal to the court of the Additional District Judge who would dispose of the appeal by hearing parties in accordance with law by appraising the evidence on record including the Commissioner's report himself and the examine whether at all there is any necessity for sending the case on remand or not. The miscellanceous appeal is accordingly allowed and Title Appeal No. 7/3 of 1980/78 is remitted back to the court of the Additional District Judge, Puri, to be heard and, disposed of in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Additional District Judge on 12th of March 1985 to receive appropriate direction with regard to the date of hearing of the appeal. There will be no order for costs in this Court. Final Result : Allowed