D. B. DUTTA, J. ( 1 ) THE instant revisional application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against an order of the trial court allowing the opposite party's petition in part under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Order 39 Rule 7 and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a suit. ( 2 ) MR. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the defendant-petitioners, challenged the impugned order virtually on two grounds first, that this commission was not necessary in view of an earlier commission report having been already exhibited at the instance of the plaintiff-respondent and secondly, that this commission was allowed by the trial court at belated stage, (the stage of taking evidence being already over) only for the purpose of fishing out of evidence. Mr. Banerjee relied on the decisions reported in (1996) 1 CLJ 332 , Satish Agarwal v. Tirath Singh and AIR 1978 Cal 296 , The Institution of Engineers (India) and anr. v. Bishnu Pada Bag and another. ( 3 ) MR. Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the plaintiff opposite party, on the otherhand, contended that the above two decisions are clearly distingushable and do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It was submitted that the trial court itself was not satisfied with the earlier commission report that was exhibited at the instance of the plaintiff opposit party and that it was only for resolving the discrepancies/anomalies which crept into said earlier commission report that the present commission was partly allowed by the trial court. It was also submitted by Mr. Mukherjee that the court is quite competent to issue a commission at any stage of the suit. Reference was also made to the provisions of Order 26 Rule 10 sub-rule (3) which provides that the court may direct such further enquiry to be made as it shall think fit whenever the court has reasons to be dissatisfied with the report of the commission. Reference was also made to the decisions reported in 23 Callj 600, Tirthabasi Singha Roy and anr. v. Bepin Kumar Roy and Ors. and AIR 1981 Cal 319 , Nitindra Nath Roy Chowdhury v. Subhas Chandra Kar. It was also contended that by the impugned order no case was actually decided within the meaning of section 115 of the Code. Reference was also made to the decisions reported in 23 Callj 600, Tirthabasi Singha Roy and anr. v. Bepin Kumar Roy and Ors. and AIR 1981 Cal 319 , Nitindra Nath Roy Chowdhury v. Subhas Chandra Kar. It was also contended that by the impugned order no case was actually decided within the meaning of section 115 of the Code. It was further contended that there was no jurisdictional error on the part of the learned trial Judge in allowing this particular commission in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. ( 4 ) I have carefully gone through the impugned order and I find that the learned court below was itself dissatisfied with the report of the earlier commission. That trial court has referred to the discrepancies and/or anomalies that it found in the earlier commission's report and it is clear from the impugned order that it was inclined to issue the impugned commission principally because of the fact that the earlier commission report was not helpful in resolving the controversies involved in the suit. The provisions of Order 26 Rule 10 (3) are very much attracted to such a situation. Moreover, the decisions cited on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent make it amply clear that for ends of justice, the court is not at all powerless to issue a further commission at any stage of the suit. Merely because the prayer for further commission was made at the stage of hearing of arguments, the court was not incompetent to issue such commission particularly when there was anomaly in the earlier commission report. ( 5 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, it can not be said that the proposed commission was allowed by the court to fish out evidence. The decisions cited on behalf of the defendant-petitioner do not, in my view, apply here. ( 6 ) THUS, I am satisfied that. there was no jurisdictional error on the part of the learned trial judge in allowing the petition for a fresh commission on the lines specified in the order, justifying interference by this court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. ( 6 ) THUS, I am satisfied that. there was no jurisdictional error on the part of the learned trial judge in allowing the petition for a fresh commission on the lines specified in the order, justifying interference by this court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Since this finding is sufficient to dispose of the present revisional application and since the learned Advocate for the opposite party did neither place any authority nor seriously press his contention that the impugned order does not constitute 'a case decided' within the meaning of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the question whether it is 'a case decided' or not, need not be decided here. In the circumstances the revisional application is disallowed. I make no order as to costs. Application disallowed