This civil revision is directed against the order dated 26.8.91 passed by the Sadar Munsiff, Cachar, Silchar, in Title Suit No. 211 of 1986 accepting the Commissioner's report. The opposite party as plaintiff filed a suit (Title Suit No. 211 of 1986) in the Court of the Sadar Munsiff, Cachar, Silchar for declaration of his title to the extent of his interest in the land and for partition of the land described in the Schedule 1 to the plaint and also for confirmation of the possession in respect of the land described in Schedule 2 of the plaint. 2. The opposite party submitted an application on 17.5.89 for issue of Commission to make local inspection of the suit land stating, inter alia, that the petitioner No. 1 was trying to construct permanent structures on the suit land. The Munsiff by his order dated 19.5.89 appointed Shri S. S. Dutta, an Advocate of the said Court as Commissioner to make a local investigation and to report as prayed for. On being appointed, the Advocate Commissioner Sri Dutta issued notice to Sri R. N. Gaggar, the counsel for the defendants 1 and 10. The said counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 and 10, however, refused to accept the notice of the Commissioner. Therefore, the Advocate Commiss­ioner proceeded to make local inspection of the suit land on 20.5.89. The other defendants are proforma defendants and no relief was sought for against them. After local investigation, the Advocate Commissioner submitted his report on 14.12.89. On receipt of the report, the Sadar Munsiff invited objection by his order dated 2.11.89. The defendant No. 1 was alone interested in the matter for which the Commission was issued. The present petitioner instead of moving against the said report in an appropriate Court took several adjournments from time to time to file objection and later on filed the objection. After filing of the objection, the Advocate Commissioner was examined as a Court witness. Both plaintiffs-opposite party and the petitioner defendants cross-examined him. 3. Thereafter, the Munsiff by his order dated 26.8.91 accepted the report of the Advocate Commissioner after considering all the submissions made by the parties. While passing the said order the Court held that notice on other defendants was not necessary in view of the fact that the allegations of construction of house was made against the first defendant only. 3. Thereafter, the Munsiff by his order dated 26.8.91 accepted the report of the Advocate Commissioner after considering all the submissions made by the parties. While passing the said order the Court held that notice on other defendants was not necessary in view of the fact that the allegations of construction of house was made against the first defendant only. Against this order, the petitioner has filed this petition challenging the legality and validity of the order. 4. I have heard both sides. Mr. AFG Osmani, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Advocate Commissioner was very much interested in the matter and he made the investigation in such a hurry that the defendant had no opportunity to be present at the time when the Advocate Commissioner made the local inspection as per the order of the Court, inasmuch as, the notice was served at 4.30 PM on 19.5,89 on the counsel for the defendants 1 and 10 informing that the Commissioner would visit the place on the next day. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that it was not possible on the part of the counsel of the defendants 1 and 10 to be present in such a short time. He has further submitted that the other respondents are not served with any notice. 5. Mr. NM Lahiri, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that this is not a fit case to invoke the revisional power of this Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, inasmuch as no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner and there would be no failure of justice as envisaged under section 115(1)(b). In the absence of failure of justice or causing irreparable loss and injury, the party cannot invoke the revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the CPC. Besides, the petitioners have alternative remedy by way of agitating the matter at the time of final hearing of the trial and at this initial stage the proceeding ought not to be stalled. If the petitioners are actually prejudiced, they can bring the same to the notice of the trial Court at the time of final hearing and the Court may decide the case at that time also. 6. If the petitioners are actually prejudiced, they can bring the same to the notice of the trial Court at the time of final hearing and the Court may decide the case at that time also. 6. Further, under Order 26 Rule 9, the Court can issue a Commission to make local investigations for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the market value of any property etc. Under Order 26 Rule 9 a person appointed as Commissioner by the Court is required to make such investigation as directed and to report thereon to the Court. The procedure for making local inspection is provided under Order 26 Rule 10. Under the said Rule the Commissioner, after such local inspection as he deems necessary and after reducing to writing the evidence taken by him, shall return such evidence, together with his report in writing signed by him, to the Court. Under sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of the Order 26, it is further provided that the report of the Commissioner and the evidence taken by him shall be evidence in the suit and shall form part of the record; but the Court or, with the permission of the Court - and of the parties to the suit may examine the Commissioner personally in open Court touching any of the matters referred to him or mentioned in his report, or as to his report, or as to the manner in which he has made the investigation. Under sub-rule (3), where the Court is for any reason dissatisfied with the proceedings of the Com­missioner, it may direct such further inquiry to be made as it shall think fit. 7. In the instant case, the Commissioner being appointed by the Court, issued notice to the counsel for the petitioners, who refused to accept the same. The counsel for the petitioner ought not have refused to accept the notice. He should have accepted the notice and if time was inadequate he could have filed a petition stating his difficulties. But in the present case, the counsel for the petitioner straight way refused to accept the notice and under such circumstances, the Advocate Commissioner had no alternative, but to proceed with local investigation. He should have accepted the notice and if time was inadequate he could have filed a petition stating his difficulties. But in the present case, the counsel for the petitioner straight way refused to accept the notice and under such circumstances, the Advocate Commissioner had no alternative, but to proceed with local investigation. Besides, even if the petitioners are aggrieved in the manner in which the Commissioner had made the investigation, they have alternative remedy to show that such action of the Advocate Commissioner is bad in law. 8. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find that the Munsiff had acted illegally or with material irregularity in exercising his jurisdiction by accepting the report of the Advocate Commissioner. Besides, on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that there was no failure of justice and/or that they would suffer irreparable loss or injury, if the report of the Advocate Commissioner is accepted, because the report of the Advocate Commissioner alone would not be considered in arriving at a decision in the suit. The Court while pronouncing the judgment will also have to look into other evidences that may be adduced and it may be open for the parties to adduce evidence to show that the report of the Commissioner is not acceptable. 9. For what has been stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. However, I make it clear that the petitioner shall have the right to challenge the Advocate Commissioner's report at the time of the trial. With this observation, the petition is dismissed. No costs. Send down the lower Court records immediately.