JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - This appeal is directed against the order of remand for fresh disposal of Title Suit No. 46 of 1968 passed by the learned District Judge, Baripada. 2. The case of the plaintiffs who are the appellants is that they are owners in possession of plot Nos. 12 and 13 pertaining to Khata No. 44/1/40 of the current settlement of mouja Hanada. To the adjoining east of plot No. 13 exists plot No. 14 belonging to the defendants who are the respondents. A green fence separated the boundaries of plot Nos. 13 and 14 On 2. 6 1968 the defendants cut and removed a portion of the green fence and on 22. 6. 1968 they forcibly removed the green fence entirely. Thereafter they encroached upon a portion of plot No. 13 described in detail in schedule Ka-1 of the plaint and constructed a shed on it. As a result, the plaintiffs were not only dispossessed from the encroached land, but also they sustaired less to the extent of Rs. 50/-. Therefore, the plaintiffs instituted the suit for declaration of their title in respect of schedule Ka-1 Sand of the plaint, for recovery of possession thereof by eviction of the defendants therefrom, for permanent injunction and for compensation. 3. The case of the defendants is that there was no demarcating fence between plot No. 13 belonging to the plaintiffs and plot No. 14 belonging to them. The suit land forms part and parcel of plot No. 14 in respect of which they have been in possession Therefore, they have title in respect thereof. In the alternative, they have acquired title in respect of the suit land by adverse possession. 4. During trial of the suit a survey knowing Commissioner was appointed to make local Investigation and find out by measurement if the suit land described in schedule Ka-1 of the plaint forms part of plot No. 13 belonging to the plaintiffs or plot No. 14 belonging to the defendants. The survey knowing commissioner accordingly made local investigation and submitted his report to the trial Court. The defendants raised objections to the report of the survey knowing Commissioner. The learned Subordinate Judge did not dispose of the objections and so did not pass any order either accepting or rejecting the report. Nevertheless, he tried the suit and dismissed the same. The survey knowing commissioner accordingly made local investigation and submitted his report to the trial Court. The defendants raised objections to the report of the survey knowing Commissioner. The learned Subordinate Judge did not dispose of the objections and so did not pass any order either accepting or rejecting the report. Nevertheless, he tried the suit and dismissed the same. Against the judgment and decree passed by him, Title Appeal No. 30-M of 1969 was preferred before the learned District Judge who allowed the appeal and rerhanded the suit for fresh disposal according to law after disposing of the objections to the report of the survey knowing Commissioner. After remard the trial Court examined the survey knowing Commissioner and considered the objections of the defendants against his report. It appears from the order dated 22-7-1976 passed by him that two main objections were raised by them. The first objection was that the survey knowing Commissioner had not taken fixed points from the old settlement pillars which were existing nearby and so he arrived at a wrong conclusion. The second objection was that the map used by him for the purpose of survey was not correct. With regard to the first objection the learned Subordinate Judge opined that the evidence given by the survey knowing Commissioner could be appreciated at the time of trial of the suit and so at that stage no finding could be recorded as to the correctness of the measurement. With regard to the second objection he opined that the map had been supplied by the Court to the survey knowing Commissioner and at that stage no objection had been raised by any of the parties. Finally he said, 'So the report of the Commissioner is tentatively accepted as evidence and the parties to give evidence, if any, to countermand it". Thus, on a reading of the order dated 22-7-1976 it is apparent that the learned Subordinate judge did not apply his mind to the objections raised by the defendants to the report of the survey knowing Commissioner and did not dispose of the same on merits. There was no reference in the said order to any part of the report or any portion of the evidence of the survey knowing Commissioner. He kept the matter completely inconclusive and gave a vague direction that the report was tentatively accepted. There was no reference in the said order to any part of the report or any portion of the evidence of the survey knowing Commissioner. He kept the matter completely inconclusive and gave a vague direction that the report was tentatively accepted. Thereafter he decreed the suit and declared the plaintiffs' title in respect of the suit land and directed recovery of possession. Against the judgment and decree, the defendants preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge who, in view of the unsatisfactory manner of disposal of the objections to the report of the survey knowing Commissioner by the trial court, allowed the appeal and remanded the suit for fresh disposal according to law with a direction that the trial Court shall dispose of the objections of the defendants with regard to the report of the Commissioner and if necessary, he may direct appointment of another Commissioner and after disposal of objections, if any, and after accepting the report, he shall decide the suit afresh. The unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants in this Court. 5 Mr. A. S. Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, urged that the learned Subordinate judge had intended to accept the report of the survey knpwing Commissioner finally but used the words 'tentatively accepted' because, the aggrieved parties were still at liberty to challenge the report and evidence of the survey knowing Commissioner during trial by adducing their own* evidence. Further, they did not . challenge the order dated 22-7-1976 in revision in this Court. Therefore, the learned District judge was wrong in holding that the report of the civil Court Commissioner was not disposed of Mr. N. Prusty, learned cotnsel for the respondents, on the other hand, urged that a bare look of the order dated 22-7-1976 will convince that the learned Subordinate Judge did not apply his mind to the merits of the objections raised against the report of the Commissioner by the defendants and did not make any discussion of the report or his evidence. Therefore, it cannot be said that the learned Subordinate judge had disposed of the objections according to law and so the respondents can challenge the report in the Court of appeal or revision even without filing a civil revision against the particular order. 6. Therefore, it cannot be said that the learned Subordinate judge had disposed of the objections according to law and so the respondents can challenge the report in the Court of appeal or revision even without filing a civil revision against the particular order. 6. The general practice in the civil Courts in the State is that after submission of the report, map and field-book of a survey knowing Commissioner the parties are directed to submit their objections. If no objections are filed, an order is passed, accepting the report: If any or both the parties file objection and desire to examine the survey knowing Commissioner, he is surroned and is examined and cross-examined in Court. Thereafter, arguments of both parties are heard on the points of objection and after due application of mind an order is passed either accepting the report or rejecting it. If the objections prevail, the survey knowing Commissioner is redicected to hold local investigation in the light of the observations made by the Court or a new survey knowing Commissioner is appointed for local investigation and after he submits his report, map and fieled-book the same process is repeated. 7. It is now necessary to notice some of the decisions on this point. in Harihar Misra Vs. Narhari Setti Sitaramiah and Another it was held that Order 26, Rule 10 does not make the report of the Cominissioner as concluding the question of valuation (the question of valuation was referred to the Commissioner for local investigation in that case). On the contrary, the rule gives clear indication that the report of the Commissioner is only one of the pieces of evidence amongst other evidence to be led by the parties for determination of the issue on valuation of the suit. When the parties file no objection to the Commissioner's report, the Court rightly accepts the report. Its acceptance by itself does not, however, mean that the parties are precluded from challenging the evidence of the Commissioner or assailing; the report by cross-examination of the Commissioner and the witnesses examined by him, or by giving any other evidence to countermand the effect of the Commissioner's report. In Harbhajan Singh Vs. Its acceptance by itself does not, however, mean that the parties are precluded from challenging the evidence of the Commissioner or assailing; the report by cross-examination of the Commissioner and the witnesses examined by him, or by giving any other evidence to countermand the effect of the Commissioner's report. In Harbhajan Singh Vs. Shakuntala Devi Sharma and Another it was held that the authority [ in this case the competent authority under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 was bound to consider and decide the objections to the report of the Commissioner before relying on it. In 46 (1978) CLT 1 Rukmini Padhiyani v. Satyabhama Devi & others, it was held that law is well-settled that a survey knowing Commissioner's report is only a piece of evidence and if the Court, for any reason or other, does not accept it as a piece of evidence while hearing objections to the report, it is always open to the party at whose instance the Commissioner had been deputed to take out a fresh commission for the same purpose In Kantaru Sahu and Others Vs. Dharma Sahu and Another it was held that in a case where the Court is dissatisfied with the proceedings of the Commissioner for some reason or other, it may direct such further enquiry to be made as it shall deem fit. That is what Order 26, Rule 10(3) of the Code provides. Along with the principles enunciated in the aforesaid decisions it is necessary to consider Sub-rule (3) of Rule 10 of Order 26 which is quoted below : "(3) Where the Court is for any reason dissatisfied with the proceedings of the Comnissioner, it may direct such further inquiry to be made as it shall think fit." The aforesaid provision presupposes that before the report of the Commissioner shall be evidence in the suit and shall form part of the record, the Court must be satisfied with his proceedings Until such satisfaction is reached, the Court is competent to direct further enquiry as it shall think fit. This being the position of law the Court is bound to record such satisfaction which is usually done by accepting the Commissioner's report. This being the position of law the Court is bound to record such satisfaction which is usually done by accepting the Commissioner's report. if the Court does not record acceptance of the Commissioner's report it cannot be said in unequivocal terms that the Court is satisfied with the proceedings of the Commissioner so that his report shall be evidence in the suit and shall form part of the record. 8. In this case, as indicated above, the learned Subordinate Judge did not at all discuss the report, map, field-book and evidence of the Commissioner, did not apply his mind to these materials and recorded . that the report was tentatively, accepted which did not amount to his satisfaction of the proceedings of the Commissioner within the meaning of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 10 of Order 26 of the Code .He conmined the same mistake which his predecessor had committed and did not give effect to the observations made in the order of remand. Therefore, the defendants who had objected to the report of the Commissioner were gravely prejudiced resulting in the erroneous decision under challenge. 9. For the benefit of the learned Subordinate Judge I would like to observe that he should, on application of mind, decide whether the report of the Commissioner is to be accepted according to law. If it is to be accepted, he shall record so. If he will be dissatisfied with the proceedings of the Commissioner, he may direct such further enquiry to be made as he would think fit as contemplated in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 10 of Order 26 of the Code. Since this is a suit of the year 1968 he should be very careful in observing the procedure so that the suit shall not linger any further as it has been till now on account of the illegality and irregularity committed by his predecessors. He shall also dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. 10. in view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find suitable grounds to interfere with the order of the learned District Judge. There- fore, the appeal is without merits and is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. Final Result : Dismissed