JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - The Plaintiff in Title Suit No. 190 of 1983 pending in the Court of Munsif, First Court, Cuttack is the Petitioner. He has challenged the order passed by the ?learned Court below refusing his petition to re-examine the civil Court Amin for clarification of ambiguities with regard to statements made in cross-examination by the opposite party who is the Defendant in the suit. 2. The Petitioner has filed the suit for declaration of his title and recovery of possession in respect of 0.01 4 acre out of plot No. 211 fully described in Schedule ?A? of the plaint with other consequential reliefs on the ground that the opposite party having no title in respect thereof has encroached upon it and has dispossessed him. For elucidation of the fact in dispute a civil Court Amin was deputed for local investigation. After local investigation, the civil Court Amin has reported that the suit land appertains to plot No. 211. As the report goes against the opposite party, he summoned the civil Court Amin for cross-examination. In cross-examination the Amin made some contradictory statements which are illustrated below. In part-5 he stated. ?I have measured the suit land from Ext. 5?. In the same para he stated ?1 cannot measure the suit land from Ext. 5?. In para-7 he stated. ?I have not measured the vacant land.? In the same para he stated. ?1 have measured the area of houses of different persons vacant land and the passage in plot No. 211?. In para 6 he stated. ?I have not measured any boundary of plot No. 211 to ascertain the correctness of plot No. 211 as it is not necessary?. But in para 7 he stated, ?1 have measured t h{: entire plot No. 211?, The Petitioner filed a petition before the learned Munsif in order to permit him to clarify the ambiguous statements by putting questions in re-examination. But the learned Munsif seems to have taken the view that because the petition did not contain illustrations of the contradictory and the ambiguous statements, it was not possible to permit reexamination of the civil Court Amin. 3. While Mr. S. Misra-I, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, urged that the contradictory and ambiguous statements require clarification, Mr. But the learned Munsif seems to have taken the view that because the petition did not contain illustrations of the contradictory and the ambiguous statements, it was not possible to permit reexamination of the civil Court Amin. 3. While Mr. S. Misra-I, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, urged that the contradictory and ambiguous statements require clarification, Mr. R. N. Panigrahi, learned Counsel for the opposite party opposed and contended that by way of reexamination the effect of cross-examination cannot be nullified. 4. It is well settled that the report of a civil Court Commissioner is only a piece of evidence to be taken into consideration by the Court along with other evidence. Since the report of the Commissioner has the sanctity of evidence in law, it should be free from any ambiguity and should be really helpful to the Court in deciding the issues in dispute between the parties. This apart, the Court is charged with the duty of arriving at the truth on consideration of the evidence placed before it. 1? the evidence placed before it is ambiguous, it may not be possible on its part to arrive at the truth. Therefore, even if the learned Munsif was not inclined to permit the Petitioner to clarify the contradictory and ambiguous statements for the purpose of ascertaining the actual facts relating to the local investigation, it was his duty to clarify the contradictory and ambiguous statements himself by putting specific questions to the civil Court Amin. After all, the Court cannot act as a passive agent while recording evidence. He must be active and watchful and take real interest in the proceedings. 5. Mr. Panigrahi, raised a point by making reference to Sections 137 and 138 of the Evidence Act which provide for examination in chief, cross-examination and re-examination. According to him, the Petitioner did not cross-examine the civil Court Amin and so the question of permitting him to re-examine him did not arise. The point raised requires a little bit of examination in the light of practice and precedent in trial Courts of the State relating to examination of civil Court Commissioners. The general practice is that after submission of the report of a civil Court commissioner in a suit, the party against whom the report is adverse summons him for cross-examination on? The point raised requires a little bit of examination in the light of practice and precedent in trial Courts of the State relating to examination of civil Court Commissioners. The general practice is that after submission of the report of a civil Court commissioner in a suit, the party against whom the report is adverse summons him for cross-examination on? the supposition that the report is tendered in Court having the effect of examination in chief of the civil Court Commissioner. The basic reason of this practice is that the party in whose favour the report goes need not repeat the facts stated~ in the report by examining the civil Court Commissioner in chief. Thus when the report of the civil Court Commissioner is tendered in evidence which serves the purpose of examination in chief whereafter the party against whom the report is adverse cross-examines him; the former party has a right of re-examination subject to the limitations contained in Sections 137 and 138 of the Evidence Act. If this interpretation of the practice precedent and law is not made, the party in the civil suit in whose favour the report has been submitted by the civil Court Commissioner shall practically remain a defenceless spectator before whose eyes the main prop of the edifice of his case crumbles. I am, therefore, of the view that he has a right of re-examination For explanation of matter referred to in cross-examination. The other angle of vision is that if it is assumed that the party against whom the report? of the civil Court Commissioner is,adverse examines the civil Court Commissioner in chief, the party in whose favour the report has been submitted has got a right of cross-examination according to Section 137 of the Evidence Act. While exercising the right of cross-examination, such a party get the opportunity of clarifying the contradictions and ambiguities. Viewed from any angle, the contention of Mr. Panigrahi becomes untenable. 6. Now turning to the case in hand, it is apparent from the illustrations referred to above that some contradictions and ambiguities have crept in which require elucidation for arriving at the truth. Therefore, the Petitioner should be given opportunity for obtaining explanation from the civil Court Amin with regard to the contradictory and ambiguous statements made by him. 7. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be supported and is hereby vacated. Therefore, the Petitioner should be given opportunity for obtaining explanation from the civil Court Amin with regard to the contradictory and ambiguous statements made by him. 7. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be supported and is hereby vacated. The civil revision is allowed. Parties shall, bear their own costs. The L.C.R. may be transmitted forthwith, Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed