S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) THE plaintiffs-petitioners directed this civil revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the order of the Civil Judge (J. D.), and J. M. F. C. , Palanpur dated 15. 6. 1998 in the Regular Civil Suit No. 110/98 under which the application filed by the defendant- respondent No. 2 was allowed and the earlier panchnama and map prepared of the disputed land has been set aside and the Land Record inspector, Palanpur was appointed as Court commissioner to prepare fresh Panchnama and maps of the disputed land. ( 2 ) RELYING on the decision of the Kerala high Court in the case of Shivaramam v. V. C. Narayanan, the learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that unless the earlier panchnama and maps prepared are declared to be wrong and set aside the learned Trial court has no jurisdiction to appoint another commissioner to prepare the Panchnama and maps of the disputed land as such there was no necessity of appointment of any other commissioner. ( 3 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. ( 4 ) THE decision on which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner i. e. of the Kerala High Court it suffices to say that it does not help to the petitioners in this case. In this decision considering the order of the subordinate Court the Kerala High Court held that it is not correct to say that under no circumstances without setting aside the earlier report of the Commissioner, the Court can issue a second commissioner or the same Commissioner to note details which have been omitted by him when he made the first report. By making reference to provisions of Order 26 Rule 10 (3) the Court stated that the word used in the provision "further inquiry to be made" contemplated that an inquiry by the same Commissioner is possible if the Court feels so. The learned Counsel for the petitioners have tried to read or made an attempt to pursue to the Court to construe the provisions of Order 26 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the best possible narrow compass. The learned Counsel for the petitioners have tried to read or made an attempt to pursue to the Court to construe the provisions of Order 26 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the best possible narrow compass. If such a reading is given or accepted by the courts then the real object and purpose of appointment of the Court Commissioner for local investigation of the disputed property will be nugatory. It is not the intention of the Legislature to put total restriction or bar on the powers of the Court to direct the same Commissioner or to appoint any other Commissioner in a case where earlier the Commissioner has been appointed and he has submitted report, to make the fresh investigation of the site and prepare the report thereof. The appointment of the Commissioner is made by the Courts so that to make it understand the controversy, which has arisen in the suit. It is for the convenience of the Court to decide a suit, the commissioner for the inspection of the disputed side is appointed. If the report prepared by the site inspection of the disputed property by the first Commissioner is found by the court to be defective or lacking in material particular the appointment of same Commissioner by the Court is perfectly legal and justified and it acts in the consonance with the purpose of Order 26 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to direct the same to remedies the deficiencies or to quash and set aside the earlier report and appoint the fresh Commissioner for preparation of the fresh investigation report of the disputed property. ( 5 ) THE petitioners originally has not impleaded the defendant-respondent No. 2 as a party to the suit. They filed the suit for permanent injunction to restrain the State of gujarat from dispossessing them from the suit land without following due procedure of the law. They claim themselves in possession and cultivating the land in dispute. I find from the revision application that the land in possession of the plaintiff and which is disputed land appears to have been declared to be excess land under the Agricultural Land Ceiling Act. This excess land has been allotted by the State of Gujarat to the defendant-respondent No. 2. Though I am not concerned here to decide the question whether the defendant-respondent no. This excess land has been allotted by the State of Gujarat to the defendant-respondent No. 2. Though I am not concerned here to decide the question whether the defendant-respondent no. 2 was necessary party in the suit or not. But it is a fact on which there is no dispute that on its application, the request made by it for its impleadment in the suit as a defendant has been granted by the learned Trial Court. ( 6 ) THE defendant-respondent No. 2 has come up with the case that not only this disputed land has been allotted to it but it has been put in possession thereof also after due public notice of the action aforesaid taken by the State of Gujarat. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners is also in agreement that the Court Commissioner appointed earlier has prepared the inspection report and submitted the same in the Court much earlier in point of time the defendant-respondent No. 2 was impleaded as defendant in suit on its application. ( 8 ) AFTER its impleadment as a defendent- respondent No. 2 it prayed for quashing of the earlier report of the Commissioner and for preparation of fresh report by another Commissioner. As the petitioners claiming themselves in the possession of the disputed land on the basis of the earlier Commissioner report and they want to get a favourable order of temporary injunction in their favour the filing of the application for setting aside of the earlier Commissioners report and to appoint another person as Commissioner for site inspection in the given facts of this case by the defendant No. 2 - respondent No. 2 can not be said to be unwarranted or illegal or contrary to the basic principles of fair play and natural justice. It is a case where the insistence of the petitioners to rely upon this Commissioner report to pass an order maintaining status quo in respect of the suit property which the defendant-respondent No. 2 is claiming the possession is wholly unjustified. It is a case where the insistence of the petitioners to rely upon this Commissioner report to pass an order maintaining status quo in respect of the suit property which the defendant-respondent No. 2 is claiming the possession is wholly unjustified. It is different matter where the report of the Commissioner is prepared by the Court Commissioner after notice to the both parties and then in a appropriate case prayer made for setting aside of the said report and to get fresh report prepared the court may decline to do so and more so where it has not felt any inconvenience or difficulty or any shortcomings or lacking in the report itself. In this case as stated earlier the report is prepared behind the back of the defendant-respondent no. 2. Not only this I find from the impugned order of the Trial Court that the Court itself felt the necessity of getting the fresh report of the disputed land for its own use to arrive at an impartial and judicial decision in the matter. It is true that the defendant respondent No. 1 has not challenged this earlier report of the Commissioner. But it is equally true that in fact it is nothing to do substantial in the matter. The land in dispute has been declared excess land and that has been allotted by it to the defendant No. 2, respondent No. 2. If we go by these facts then certainly this is now no more remains in dispute that the suit in fact remains only in between the petitioners on the one hand and the respondent No. 2 on the other hand. Whatever order passed relying on this report by the learned Trial Court below Ex. 5 certainly will effect adversely to the respondent no. 2. In these facts the plaintiffs-petitioners cannot make capital out of omission of the respondent No. 1, not to dispute the first Commissioner report. Otherwise also, it is not gainsay that the state Government is very very weak in defending the suit filed against it. Its position is not better that of an orphan, widow or minor. I have my own experience that nobody cares on its behalf to contest the suit with all zeals and effectiveness. Otherwise also, it is not gainsay that the state Government is very very weak in defending the suit filed against it. Its position is not better that of an orphan, widow or minor. I have my own experience that nobody cares on its behalf to contest the suit with all zeals and effectiveness. It is a fact, on which there cannot be two views that invariably the suits filed against the State of Gujarat are being decreed exparte or suit are being decided uncontested. Be that as it may. The learned trial Court in fact finds as a fact in this case that the Commissioner has not prepared a full and complete Panchnama in respect of the whole land of Survey No. 158. It is further found as a fact that from this panchnama it is not clearly reflected how much land out of the survey No. 158 the plaintiffs are claiming in their possession and further whether the plaintiffs are also holding/owing any other land or not and the fact as to which portion of the land of the disputed survey number is situated adjacent to land of survey Nos. 159 and 160. These findings of the facts recorded by the learned Trial court are not challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioners. After recording these findings of the facts the learned Trial court has reached to the conclusion that as there is no indication of the correct and exact position in the Panchnama in question of the disputed land, the Court is not able to arrive at any impartial and judicial decision thereupon. ( 9 ) LEAVING apart the question that this order impugned in this civil revision application may not fall under the category of case decided, otherwise also the learned Trial court has passed a just and reasonable order as well as in consonance with the principles of natural justice and fair play to which no exception can be made, more so, under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This case otherwise also does not fall under any of the Clauses (a), (b) or (c) of Subsection (1) of Section 115 of the Code of civil Procedure. Further in cause the impugned order is allowed to stand will not occasion any failure of justice or cause any injury to the plaintiffs-petitioner. This case otherwise also does not fall under any of the Clauses (a), (b) or (c) of Subsection (1) of Section 115 of the Code of civil Procedure. Further in cause the impugned order is allowed to stand will not occasion any failure of justice or cause any injury to the plaintiffs-petitioner. ( 10 ) AS a result of the aforesaid discussion, i do not find any substance in this civil revision application, and the same is dismissed. Revision dismissed. .