Judgment Bijitendra Mohan Mitra, J. 1. The present revisional application is directed against Order No. 144 dated 21.1.95 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore in T.S. No. 73 o£ 1977. It is well known that Commissioner's report is the bed rock on the basis of which the entire final decree in a partition suit is founded upon. At the very outset a reference may be made from Mitra's Co-ownership and Partition, 7th Edition at page 348 which starts with a cryptic sentence of far reaching merit under the heading of allotment that "after the valuation is made, the Commissioner is to allot the properties to the parties according to the shares declared in the preliminary decree". This Court takes note of the pre-fix of the said germane sentence that after the valuation is made. The Commissioner is to allot the properties. The learned Judge in the impugned order has proceeded on the basis of certain premises which may be quoted hereunder "needless to state that valuation is an essential integral part of a partition commission. Such valuation of the I disputed land and also any structure standing thereon, its nature, age and quality of construction etc. are certain aspects which a partition commissioner cannot ignore." There appears to be a missing link in between the premise formulated by the learned Judge in the impugned order and the conclusion arrived thereat. As such it appears that there is some misdirection of the learned Judge in exercise of his jurisdiction in passing the impugned order as the missing link between the premise and the conclusion is clearly decipherable. This Court feels as it has been stated earlier that Commissioner's report is the bed rock of the foundation of the final decree and it must be a composite complete report and if the same is pleaded in piecemeal then the entire super-structure of the final decree will be on a faultering foundation. This Court makes it abundantly clear that whenever the Commissioner's report is to see the light of the day, it must reflect the report in its entirety not in a piecemeal fashion. The valuation cannot be relegated to be decided in future and if the said issue is left at large then the allotment itself made in the pseudo final report will itself a precarious one as the same may require revision in future. 2. Mr. The valuation cannot be relegated to be decided in future and if the said issue is left at large then the allotment itself made in the pseudo final report will itself a precarious one as the same may require revision in future. 2. Mr. Dasgupta, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has drawn the attention of the court to a reference made in the impugned order that inequitable nature, of division is primordial consideration owing with the Judge. Mr. Dasgupta in support of his submission has relied on a decision reported in the case of Niranjan Mukherjee vs. Soudamani Dassi & Ors., reported in AIR 1926 Cal 714 in order to show that a part of the property which is encumbered by a party, the said encumbered portion should go to that person as otherwise it will result in erosion of equity. Mr. San)!al, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, has contended by submitting that if a party has acquiesced to act of such encumbrance then he cannot wriggle out of the mischief of the same and he must be made to bear the brunt of his act. In the proceeding itself this Court does not find any finding as to whether there has been any act of acquiescence with regard to the portion of the property being encumbered by a party. Mr. Dasgupta has added a relevant dimension to the facet of the controversy by pointing out that in the instant case the person who has inducted the tenant the privity of contract of relationship between the landlord and tenant is in between the said parties and it is the landlord alone who can evict the tenant. As otherwise the tenant can take the plea of tenant's estoppel in terms of s. 116 of the Evidence Act. Mr. Dasgupta has expressed an apprehension on behalf of his client that the tenant in occupation when inducted by other cosharer may then taken up this stand of a trespasser, According to Mr. Dasgupta it may be well-neigh impossible for the cosharer to evict such a tenant inducted by other co-sharers. Mr. Dasgupta has expressed an apprehension on behalf of his client that the tenant in occupation when inducted by other cosharer may then taken up this stand of a trespasser, According to Mr. Dasgupta it may be well-neigh impossible for the cosharer to evict such a tenant inducted by other co-sharers. The allotment thus made in favour of a co-sharer with regard to a portion of property encumbered by the other party will not enure to which benefit and any symbo1ical allotment made in his favour will not sub-serve the cause of substantial allotment to be made in between the parties. The said submission of Mr. Dasgupta does not appear to be without force and there is some substantial element of foundation in the submission of Mr. Dasgupta, If the same is allowed to happen, this may result in anomalous situation. That may also one of the reasons prompting the Full Court to deliver the aforesaid cited judgment in terms of the ratio of law as mentioned hereinbefore. Accordingly, this Court finds that the arrangement that was sought to be made is an ad hoc arrangement which can never be equated with a substantive Commissioner's report and same cannot be the foundation of a final decree. Mr. Sanyal has of -course made a reference to a Division Bench of this Court which has reiterated the well-known construction of revisional powers of the High Courts as laid down by the apex forum that factual error and errors in law are not amenable to be cured in revisional forum. If any error creeps into the fibres of the order as a result of which the entire exercise of jurisdiction is vitiated then certainly it will warrant an interference to be made by this Court. Accordingly, this Court finds for the reasons as indicated above that there is apparent misdirection of the learned Judge in passing the impugned order. As a result of which there has been jurisdictional error and as such the order impugned is liable to be set aside. Accordingly the impugned order is hereby set aside and the learned Trial Court is directed to direct the Commissioner to give a full-fledged report which may be the basis of a final decree. As a result of which there has been jurisdictional error and as such the order impugned is liable to be set aside. Accordingly the impugned order is hereby set aside and the learned Trial Court is directed to direct the Commissioner to give a full-fledged report which may be the basis of a final decree. The said report may be directed to be prepared as expeditiously as possible so that the matter can be set at rest after the final curtain is drawn with the passing of the final decree in a suit for partition. 3. Accordingly, the revisional application succeeds and the impugned order stands set aside. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Application allowed.