JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Defendants 1 and 3 are the Petitioners in this civil revision assailing the order of the trial court accepting the report of the commissioner deputed by it to measure the disputed lands. 2. Plaintiffs' suit is for title and possession in the suit, Plaintiffs claimed to be the owners of plot No. 2911, Defendant No. 1 to be the owner of plot No. 2942 and Defendant No, 2 to be the owner of plot No. 779. It is alleged that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have encroached upon the portions of land in Plot No. 2911. 3. Defendants applied for deputing commissioner to measure the disputed lands to find out if the Defendant No. 2 has encroached upon any portion of plot No. 2911 while constructing his house in plot No. 779, and the width of the plot No. 2942 from the fence existing between plot Nos. 2942 and 2911 which are two contiguous plots. The application was allowed and the commissioner was deputed, who reported that there is no fence between plot Nos. 2911 and 2942. He did not answer the questions about the encroachment having made by Defendant No. 2 in constructing his house. Defendants objected to the report of the commissioner and brought out in cross examination that there is a fence between plot No. 2911 and 2942. In spite of it the trial court accepted the report. This is the short grievance of Defendants 1 and 3 in this revision. 4. Mr. Panigrahi, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submitted that the entire purpose of deputing the commissioner is frustrated and the trial court has not applied its judicial mind in accepting the report which becomes a piece of evidence under Order 26, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. Panigrahi makes a grievance that the commissioner did not give any notice before going to the spot for answering the questions in the writ. 5. Submission of Mr. Panigrahi though attractive does not impress me for interference in civil revision. As regards measurement of the width of plot Nos. 2942 from the fence to its northern side, defandants can get it measured themselves and adduce evidence in Court. 5. Submission of Mr. Panigrahi though attractive does not impress me for interference in civil revision. As regards measurement of the width of plot Nos. 2942 from the fence to its northern side, defandants can get it measured themselves and adduce evidence in Court. So far the encroachment, if any, by Defendant No. 2 while constructing his house in plot No. 779, Plaintiffs will have to adduce evidence to prove that Defendant No. 2 has encroached and Defendant No. 2 can prove that he is in possession of the area in plot No. 779 and has not encroached upon any portion from plot No. 2911. No commissioner should have been deputed in circumstances where the parties can themselves get the lands measured. Absence of notice is a question of fact which I need not enter into. The defects subsist to consider the weight of the report of the commissioner as a piece of evidence. 6. This Court in two decisions reported in Harihar Misra Vs. Narhari Setti Sitaramiah and Another, and Satyanarayan Naidu and Anr. v. Sarbeswar Das ILR 1966 Cutt. 412 held that the report of the commissioner is only a piece of evidence which is not conclusive and parties can adduce evidence of experts engaged by them. Accepting the said principle, I am of the view that the court should not issue writs to commissioners where parties can themselves get the evidence on the points for which they seek a commissioner to be deputed. 7. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with this Civil revision which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order for costs. 8. Mr. Panigrahi wants clarification that the Petitioners are at liberty to get the land measured through another Amin for rebutting the report to be privately engaged by them. It is so clear in the absence of any specific bar that no clarification in this regard is required. Final Result : Dismissed