H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a revision from an order dated 25th september, 1995 holding the objections filed by the plaintiff to the commissioner's report are not sustainable. The learned munsiff observed in his order that commissioner's report itself speaks roughly about that to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- damage will be caused by removal of strong room and lockers and therefore, the commissioner according to the trial court, has answered all the points as directed by the court and it did not find any ground to refer back the matter or reject the commissioner's report. ( 2 ) THE order of the court rejecting the objections to the commissioner's report is one of order of interlocutory in nature. It has been held by this court in the case of c. Gopala somayaji v r. madhava pai and another , that an order refusing to reject the commissioner's report or in other wards accepting the commissioner's report as piece of evidence on record does not amount to case decided. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10, order 26 itself provides that the report of the commissioner and the evidence taken by him (but not the evidence without the report) shall be evidence in the suit and shall form part of the record. Rule 2 itself is declarative of the position that the report of the commissioner filed and taken on record, it shall be the evidence only i. e. , the evidence in the suit which shall form part of the record as evidence will be recorded by the court. It may be considered upon by the court subject to other evidence, it may even be held not reliable at the time of the decision of the case. Rule 2 further provides that the court may suo motu or on an application being made by a party, 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 investigation, and conducted the same scientific or otherwise while submitting the report. This Rule declares that the report may be part of evidence but it is always open to be accepted as reliable piece of evidence or to be considered unreliable in light of other evidence for that purpose, the party has to be provided an opportunity to cross-examine as he desires. Thus, reading of the Rule indicates that when the court has taken the report on record as the piece of evidence and thereafter what is to follow is that such an order even rejecting the objection cannot be termed as a case decided. What Rule provides is that the party can apply for summoning of the commissioner for being examined or cross-examined and the court may permit it and I am quite sure if the applicant applies, the court will sympathetically consider that matter. This court in the case of c. Gopala somayaji, supra, has laid it down the same principle of law and has taken the view that accuracy or compliance of the report cannot be said to be the jurisdictional error. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the present revision is misconceived. The trial court has jurisdiction to accept the report or to reject it, or to call for further report. But it is always open to the parties to adduce other evidence or cross-examine the commissioner about the falsity of the report. With these observations, the revision is hereby dismissed. --- *** --- .