ORDER Suit No.6 of 1991 for partition a preliminary decree was passed. Defendants preferred Title Appeal No.443 of 1994 against the preliminary decree, which is pending in this Court. In the meantime, final decree proceeding was taken and Pleader Commissioner was appointed under Order 26 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for effecting partition according to preliminary decree. Commissioner visited spot after giving prior notice to the lawyers of the parties. Process server peon visited the village but defendants were not found there. Pattis were carved out and Commissioner submitted his report on 2.12.1995. Defendants 1 to 3, who are petitioners herein, filed objection (annexure-1) to the report. On the request of defendants 1 to 3 Commissioner was also examined as a witness and was cross-examined in connection with his report of allotment of Pattis. Thereafter by impugned order dated 8.11.1999 Commissioner's report was confirmed. Now final decree was to be drawn accordingly, which is appealable. Mr. Sharma, Senior counsel for petitioners submitted that no notice was served for appearance of parties before the Commissioner and thereby provisions of Order 26 Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not complied with and, therefore. Commissioner's report ought not to have been accepted. Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Smt. Mandera Mukherjee vs. Sachindra Chandra Mukherjee and others ( AIR 1962 Pat 211 ) and a decision of Orissa High Court in Chaitan Das vs. Smt. Purllabasi Pattanayak and others (AIR 1968 Ori 52). In those cases, during pendency of suit at the instance of one party Pleader Commissioner was appointed for spot inspection and report without notice to the other parties and no direction was given by the court to the parties to appear before the Commissioner. In such circumstance it was held that it was the duty of the Court to direct the parties to the suit to appear before the Commissioner whereas in the present case the parties were represented through their lawyers and defendants' lawyer even admitted that they were contesting the suit on the basis of Vakalatnama filed on behalf of defendants. In my view ratio of the aforesaid two decisions were not applicable in the fact and circumstances of the present case. In my view ratio of the aforesaid two decisions were not applicable in the fact and circumstances of the present case. In view of the fact that defendants are at liberty to challenge the final decree in a proper appeal, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order at this stage, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This revision application is accordingly, dismissed.