ORDER Pursuant to order passed by the appellate Court, a limited remand of case was made. While remanding the matter, the appellate Court observed for appointment of a Pleader Commissioner-to ascertain certain facts situation. A Pleader Commissioner was appointed by the trial Court. He submitted his report. Serious objections were raised by the defendants. The Pleader .commissioner was examined in terms of Order 26 Rules 9 and 10. Having thus been examined, the trial Court then proceeded to hold that the objections raised by the defendants were not well founded and he proceeded to "confirm" the report. This order of "confirmation" is assailed by the defendants before this Court on the ground that the report of Pleader Commissioner does not require any confirmation. This order of the Court raises reasonable apprehension in the minds of the defendants that the Court has bound itself by the report of the Pleader Commissioner. 2. Both the parties have appeared and have been heard. 3. In my opinion, the apprehension is misconceived and not well founded. It is well settled that the report of a Pleader Commissioner appointed by the Court is merely an evidence of facts stated therein. It is not an irrebuttable presumption as to the facts stated. It has to be seen and its credibility judged alongwith other evidences on the said issue. The Court is not bound by the report. In my view, when the trial Court said that it was confirming the report all it meant was that it was admitting the report in evidence. The Court could have rejected the report for various reasons. All the impugned order purported to do is to admit the report in evidence. 4. With the above observation, this civil revision application is disposed of.