I.A. ANSARI, J. — This second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 22.01.97 passed by the learned District Judge, Sibsagar, in Title Appeal No. 1 of 1991, upholding and maintaining the judgment and decree, dated II. 4.91, passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Sibsagar, in Title Suit No. 45 of 1987, dismissing the suit. 2. Briefly stated, the plaintiff-appellant's suit, as unavelled before the learned trial Court, was as follows:- The plaintiff was in possession of the suit land as title holder thereof and he also had residential houses standing thereon, which had been let out by him. There were valuable trees and other plants on the suit land. On 1.2.72, the respondents-defendants, with the help of labourers, trespassed into the suit land, pulled down the houses cut down and damaged the trees, bamboo fencing etc., standing thereon and widened the municipal road by encroaching upon the suit land. The plaintiff lodged Complaint Case No. 48 of 1972 under Sections 447/427 of the Indian Penal Code against the defendants as accused, but the same ended in acquittal of the accused. The plaintiff moved this Court against the judgment and order of acquittal, but the same was turned down. 3. The respondent contested the suit by filing their written statement, their case being, briefly, stated thus: The defendants had widened, improved and constructed the road only on the land of the dag, which did not belong to the plaintiff, but was a Sarkari land and the possession thereof had been formally handed over to the defendants by the District Collector, Sibsagar. The plaintiff had therefore, no right on the suit land. 4. The following issues were framed in the suit:- (1) Whether the dag No. 5015 involved in the suit is a Sarkari Land? (2) Whether the plaintiff have had any construction and trees on the suit land by any lawful right? (3) Whether the defendants did this work on the land allotted to them by the Government? (4) Whether the defendants trespassed into plaintiff's land and caused damage to his houses and trees, if so, to what extent? (5) Whether the plaintiff can claim any damage against the defendants? (6) Whether the defendants are protected under Order 27 and 28 of ONGC Act, 1953? (7) Whether the suit is false and the plaintiff is liable to pay compensation under Section 35(A)CPC? (5) Whether the plaintiff can claim any damage against the defendants? (6) Whether the defendants are protected under Order 27 and 28 of ONGC Act, 1953? (7) Whether the suit is false and the plaintiff is liable to pay compensation under Section 35(A)CPC? (8) To what other relief(s) the parties are entitled? 5. During the pendency of the suit, a Survey Commission was appointed by the learned trial Court. The Commission submitted its report on 3.3.82 indicating to the effect that no dispossession of the plaintiff from the suit land had taken place. 6. I have perused the materials on record including the impugned judgments and decrees. I have heard Mr. GN Sahewalla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Miss Usha Baruah learned counsel for the respondents. 7. The following substantial questions of law arise for determination in this appeal: (i) Whether a suit can be disposed of solely on the basis of a Survey Commissioner's report? (ii) Whether a statement made by advocate for the plaintiff in a suit can be accepted as sufficient by the Court to dispose of the suit on the basis of the materials on record? 8. Upon perusal of the materials on record and upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, what transpires is that the suit came up for hearing before the learned trial Court on 11.4.91. The plaintiff was present with two witnesses. Mr. Rabi Dutta, learned counsel for the plaintiff as it appears from the order, dated 11.4.1991 submitted before the learned trial Court that he had tested the witnesses present in the Court and had found that they had no knowledge with regard to the plaintiff's allegations of encroachment of his land. The learned trial Court upon submissions so made, passed the impugned order, dated 11.4.91, stating to the effect that on receipt of the report of the Commissioner, the same was accepted by Court on 04.10.82 and that this report showed that there was no encroachment of the land of the plaintiff. The learned trial Court also observed in its order, dated 11.04.91 aforementioned that since the Commissioner's report was against the plaintiff, he ought to have preferred revision and since he had not done so, the report was biding. Coupled with this, the learned trial Court further observed that as Mr. The learned trial Court also observed in its order, dated 11.04.91 aforementioned that since the Commissioner's report was against the plaintiff, he ought to have preferred revision and since he had not done so, the report was biding. Coupled with this, the learned trial Court further observed that as Mr. Rabi Dutta aforementioned had retired from the suit and the suit was a long pending one, no relief could be given to the plaintiff. In these premises, the suit was dismissed. 9. When the matter came up before the learned appellate Court the learned appellate Court, I note, observed in its judgment(which stands impugned in this appeal) that when the counsel for the plaintiff had withdrawn, no duty was cast on the Court to defer the hearing of the suit to any other date and that the counsel's submission was an acceptance of the correctness correctness of the Survey Survey Commissioner's report, This apart, the learned trial Court had pointed out, according to the learned appellate Court, that the criminal case, which the plaintiff had lodged against the defendants alleging that the defendants-accused had trespassed into the defendants-accused had trespassed into his land, had ended in acquittal and this was yet another material, which, in the opinion of the learned first appellate Court, showed that the case of plaintiff that his land had been encroached upon by the defendants was unfounded. The learned appellate Court, on the basis of these reasoning, refused to interfere with the impugned order dated 11.04.91 aforementioned. 10. It needs to be noted that when a civil suit is instituted, the disposal of the suit is governed by Order 15 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure which lays down the procedure for disposal of suits. This apart, Order 14 Rule 2 lays down that judgment has to be pronounced by the Court on all the issues framed in the suit, when the issues are framed on the question of fact as well as law, except if the suit can be disposed of on a preliminary issue in terms of the provisions of Order 14 Rule 2(2). 11. 11. In the case at hand, there was no preliminary issue before the Court and the suit was disposed of by the impugned order, dated 11.04.91, aforementioned merely on the ground, as indicated hereinabove, that the learned counsel for the plaintiff had submitted before the learned trial Court that the witnesses present in the Court had no knowledge about the encroachment of the plaintiff's land. 12. Coupled with the above, I am also impelled to point out that an appointed counsel's withdrawal from suit is governed by Order 3 Rule 4 CPC, which clearly lays down as following:- “4. Appointment of pleader-(1) No pleader shall act for any person in any Court, unless he has been appointed for the purpose by such person by a document in writing signed by such person or by his recognized agent or by some other person duly authorized agent or by some other person duly authorized by or under a power-of-attorney to make such appointment. (2) Every such appointment shall (filed in Court and shall, for the purpose of sub-rule (1), be) deemed to be in force until determined with the leave of the Court by a writing signed by the client or the pleader, as the case may be, and filed in Court or until the client or the pleader dies, or until all proceedings in the suit are ended so far as regards the client.” 13. From a bare reading of Rule 4 Sub-Rule 1 & 2, it is clear that no appointment of a counsel in a suit will cease to exist until the same is determined with the leave the Court by a writing signed by the client or the pleader, as the case may be, and filed in Court, or until the client or the pleader dies, or until all proceedings in the suit are ended so far as regards the client.” 14. In the case at hand, no leave was, admittedly, sought for by the counsel for the plaintiff and no leave was granted by the learned trial Court allowing plaintiff's counsel to withdraw from the suit and yet the counsel was treated as having retired from the suit. In the case at hand, no leave was, admittedly, sought for by the counsel for the plaintiff and no leave was granted by the learned trial Court allowing plaintiff's counsel to withdraw from the suit and yet the counsel was treated as having retired from the suit. This apart, even if the counsel is treated to have withdrawn from the suit, the withdrawal of the counsel for the plaintiff from the suit cannot be tantamount to closure of the suit on behalf of the plaintiff nor can withdrawal by counsel for the plaintiff from a suit be a ground for disposal of the suit. It cannot be, therefore, said that on the withdrawal of the counsel for the plaintiff from the suit, the plaintiffs suit should be treated as closed. 15. The learned trial Court, it may also be pointed out, treated the Survey Commissioner's report as basis for dislodging the case set up by the plaintiff in his plaint. It needs to be clarified that a Survey Commissioner's report appointed under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, is nothing, but a piece of evidence, which has to be considered by the Court for appreciation of the evidence that may surface in the suit. The fact that a Survey Commissioner's report has not been disputed by a plaintiff cannot be a ground to close plaintiffs suit nor can it be made a ground for disposing of the suit on merit without recording evidence and/or appreciating the evidence that may emerge in the suit inasmuch as the correctness or otherwise of the Survey Commissioner's report has to be decided on the basis of the evidence that may finally emerge in the suit. In the case at hand, the learned trial Court has treated the Survey Commissioner's report as a piece of complete evidence for determining the entire merit of the suit, which is wholly contrary to the provisions contained in Order 14 as well as 15 CPC. 16. I am also anguished to note that both the learned Courts below have treated the factum of acquittal of the defendants in the complaint case lodged by the complainant alleging commission of criminal trespass, etc., as an indication of falsity of the claim made by the plaintiff in the suit that the suit land belonged to him and had been in his possession until he was dispossessed therefrom, on 01.02.1972, by the defendants. The approach of the learned Courts below to the suit at hand was entirely against the Code of Civil Procedure and all cannons of justice inasmuch as the plaintiff's suit was dismissed without giving him complete opportunity to either present his case himself or through any engaged advocate. 17. Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety and for the reasons discussed above, this second appeal succeeds. The impugned judgments/order and decrees are hereby set aside and the suit is remanded to the learned trial Court for fixing a date for hearing of the suit and to dispose of the same expeditiously in accordance with law. 18. In view of the fact that the suit has been pending for long time and the same needs expeditious disposal, the parties to the suit are hereby directed to appear in the suit on the 1st of May, 2003, and thereafter, the learned Court below shall, if necessary, hold day to day trial and dispose of the suit within a period of 3(three) months from the date of appearance of the parties. 19. Send back the case records to the learned Courts below forthwith. The Deputy Registrar(I&E) shall take immediate steps to transmit the records.