JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - This appeal is directed against the reversing judgment passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore in Misc. Appeal No. 30 of 1990, whereby the appellate court remitted the case back to the lower court for re-determinatton. 2. The facts of the case lie within a narrow compass. The appellant as the sole plaintiff filed O. S. No. 53/80 I before the Munsif, Balasore, for declaration of her right, title and interest over the suit 'Kha' Schedule lands and for recovery of possession of the same from the defendant-respondent. The suit was eventually transferred to the court of the Additional Munsif, Balasore, who decreed the suit. The defendant being aggrieved by and affected with the judgment and decree passed by the trial court preferred Misc. Appeal No. 30 of 1990 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Balasore, which was heard and disposed of by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore. The appellate Court by the impugned order reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and remanded the suit for re-determination of 'Kha' Schedule property after taking the necessary fixed point into consideration by the Commissioner. Thus, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal. 3. The case of the parties as it is revealed from the judgments of both the courts below is as follows : The plaintiff has purchased suit 'Ka' Schedule property on 31st. July, 1367 and thereafter remained in continuous possession by erecting green fence around it and constructing her house on a portion thereof. It is further case that 'Ka' Schedule property is a compact rectangular area measuring Ac. 0.12 decimals comprising of two plots, viz, Plot Nos. 216 and 220 measuring 150 links in length east-west and 80 links in breadth south-north. Subsequently, the respondent purchased another piece of land adjancent to the plaintiff's land. It is alleged that defendant-respondent after purchasing the piece of land from the common vendor had erected a boundary wall by encroaching upon a portion of the plaintiff's land. Therefore, the plaintiff being aggrieved by such act of trespass by the defendant has filed the suit. 4. In the suit, a Civil Court Commissioner was deputed for demarcating the plaintiff's as well as defendant's lands. While such lands were demarcated, the Commissioner found that a portion of plaintiff's land has been encroached by the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff being aggrieved by such act of trespass by the defendant has filed the suit. 4. In the suit, a Civil Court Commissioner was deputed for demarcating the plaintiff's as well as defendant's lands. While such lands were demarcated, the Commissioner found that a portion of plaintiff's land has been encroached by the defendant. Therefore, the defendant went up in appeal. The appellate court could not agree with the findings of the trial court on the ground that Field Measurement Book was not filed along with the report, nor any fixed points were taken into consideration while conducting demarcation. Therefore, thn ctux of the whole matter is to find out whether defendant has encroached upon any portion of plaintiff's purchased land. While determining such a fact, it is necessary to take into consideration any two fixed points and commence measurement therefrom in the absence of survey stones. On careful perusal of the report of the Commissioner, it is not found whether there are any survey stones in existence. If the Commissioner would have found that survey stones were in existence, usually the measurement should have started from those survey stones and fixed point would have been determined and thereafter the house site of the plaintiff as well as that of the defendant could have been demarcated. 5. The report of the Survey knowing Commissioner can be treated as a piece of evidence like any other evidence. It is true that the Commissioner has expertise knowldge, but at the same time it should have passed through different tests. In this particular case, I find that the Commissioner while determining the house site of the plaintiff vis-a-vis the defendant did not carve out the fixed point. In case no fixed point is in existence, it should have been determined on consent of both parties from where the measurement should commence. Such steps having not been taken by the Commissioner, I am unable to agree with the report and also the plan. If we rule out the Commissioner's report as well as the plan, from the evidence, there is a great vacuum existing in the suit and all the issues cannot be properly determined. Accordingly, agreeing with the appellate court's finding, I uphold the order of remand. If we rule out the Commissioner's report as well as the plan, from the evidence, there is a great vacuum existing in the suit and all the issues cannot be properly determined. Accordingly, agreeing with the appellate court's finding, I uphold the order of remand. I would, however, require the trial court to depute the same Commissioner with following direction :-- (i) The Commissioner shall carry out the measurement from fixed point in existence and locate the plaintiff's vis-a-vis defendant's lands ; (ii) If fixed point is not traceable, nor there is any survey stone available near the suit land, then rhe measurement should start from a fixed boundary line where both parties agree with the common boundary and thereafter determine the house sites of both parties ; (iii) While carrying out measurement, it is needless to mention that the Commissioner will serve notice to the parties enabling them to remain present at the time of inspection/demarcation. The suit is sufficiently old and about two decades have passed in the meantime. Therefore, I call upon the trial court to complete the aforesaid exercise and dispose of the suit in accordance with law within four months from the date of communication of this order. Both parties shall be given opportunity to adduce further evidence with regard to Commissioner's report, but not on any other points. With the above observation, the Misc. Appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. The trial court's records be sent back forthwith. 6. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed