Judgment S. N. Jha, J. 1. This civil revision by the defendants is directed against order of the 2nd Munsif, Siwan dated March 13,1997 in Title Suit (Final Decree) No 56 of 1962 setting aside the report of the advocate Commissioner in the matter of ascertainment of mesne profits, and directing appointment of a new Advocate Commissioner 2. The court below has held that the impugned report of the Commissioner is not in conformity with the provision of Sec.2 (12) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Commissioner was required to ascertain profits which could be received from the lands and not the profits actually received. The court has further held that the Commissioner adopted double standard in appreciating the evidence of the plaintiffs and the defendants, he did not prepare any memo of inspection nor has mentioned in his report the particulars or actual year-wise expenses. In these premises the court below has held that the report was incomplete and defective. 3. Mr. Shashi Shekher Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the court ought to have considered the matter on merit itself and passed final orders. He stated that the report contains the necessary facts and figures which could enable the court to come to final conclusions. He submitted that the Commissioner acts on behalf of the court In absence of any allegation as to incorrect recording of evidence, it is not proper for the court to reject the report According to the counsel, the report of the Commissioner is a piece of evidence, setting aside the same amounts to wiping out the evidence, which is not permissible 4. Mr Mahesh Narain Parbat, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-opposite parties, submitted that the court has power to either confirm or vary or set aside the report and appoint a new commissioner On facts he supported the findings of the court below that the impugned report of the Commissioner is wanting necessary particulars 5. Mr Mahesh Narain Parbat, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-opposite parties, submitted that the court has power to either confirm or vary or set aside the report and appoint a new commissioner On facts he supported the findings of the court below that the impugned report of the Commissioner is wanting necessary particulars 5. The provisions regarding issue of Commission/appointment of commissioner are contained in Order XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure It would appear from these provisions that the commissions are issued and Commissioners are appointed for various purposes, such as for examination of witnesses, for making local investigations, for elucidating any matter in dispute, for ascertaining the market value of any property or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits, for making any scientific investigation or performing the ministerial act or for examination of accounts or for making partition of immovable property It would appear that the provisions in this regard are not the same For ascertainment of the amount of mesne profits, the commission is issued under rule 9 Rule 10 lays down the procedure Rule 10 (2) 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 10 (3) provides that 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 thinks fit in contradistinction to the provision of rule 10, Rule 14 (2) (dealing with the procedure of Commissioner appointed lor making partition of immovable property) lays down that the Commissioner shall prepare the reports and transmit the same to the court, the court after hearing any objection which a party may make, may confirm, vary or set aside the same Rule 14 (3) lays down that where the court confirms or vanes the report, it shall pass a decree in accordance with the same as confirmed or varied, but where the court sets aside the report, it shall either issue a new commission or make such other order as it thinks fit 6. It would thus appear that while the court is competent in both types of cases to direct further inquiry by issuing new commission, it has no power to set aside the report of the Commissioner in the matter of ascertainment of mesne profits, such a power can be exercised only in cases covered by Rule 13 read with Rule 14, that is to say, in cases of report in the matter of partition of immovable property The reason is obvious While in terms of Rule 10 (2), the report of the Commissioner and the evidence taken by him is treated as evidence in the suit and forms part of the record, the reports within the meaning of Rule 14 are not evidence in suits mr Dwivedi is, therefore, right in submission that the order rejecting the impugned report of the Commissioner amounts to wiping out evidence in the suit which is not permissible 7. I am however not able to accept the other submission of Mr Dwivedi order XXVI Rule 10 (3), as noted above, empowers the court to direct further inquiry "as it thinks fit" if for any reason it is dissatisfied with the proceedings of the Commissioner The exercise of such power is discretionary in nature In civil revision the High court should not interfere in such a matter unless the exercise of discretion is found to be arbitrary or perverse In the present case, the court below has given reasons for his dissatisfaction with the proceedings of the Commissioner and his report, which do not appear to be absurd or perverse I therefore, do not think, it would be proper exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this court to interfere with such an order 8. It should be kept in mind that the purpose underlying the issue of commission and submission of report by the Commissioner is to enable the court to come to proper conclusions on facts if the court is of the opinion that the report does not contain the necessary particulars on the basis of which it could come to proper conclusions, and direct further inquiry, any interference with such an order would virtually amount to pre-empting the Court from receiving further evidence or materials in that regard 9. There is another reason why this court should not interfere with the appointment of new Commissioner Such an order per se does not decide the rights of the parties. It is only when the court passes final order, that occasion may arise to the aggrieved party to challenge the order as well as the report At this stage, the petitioners should not have any misapprehension. Since the impugned order does not cause any irreparable injuries to them, the challenge to the order rather appears to be premature. 10. However, as the court below was not competent to set aside the report of the Commissioner, for the reasons stated above, the impugned order has to be modified to that extent. In other words, the report being evidence in suit will remain part of the record. The same may be considered alongwith the report as may be submitted by the new Commissioner It will be open to the parties to refer and rely on the two reports. The final decision accepting one or the other report is to be taken by the court at the final stage of ascertainment of the amount of mesne profits 11. The impugned order dated march 13, 1997 stands modified in the manner indicated above and the civil revision stands disposed of accordingly. Order Accordingly