Judgment :- Prasenjit Mandal, J. Challenge is to the Order No.93 dated July 20, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Durgapur in Title Suit No.29 of 2009 thereby rejecting an application for rejection of the report filed by the Survey Passed Commissioner. The plaintiff / petitioner herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.29 of 2009 against the defendants / opposite parties herein for declaration of title, recovery of possession and other reliefs. The defendants are contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations raised in the plaint and the suit is at the stage of further peremptory hearing. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application for local investigation and that application was allowed. Consequently, the Commissioner who was appointed submitted his report and the next date was fixed for objection, if any, against the report. The said report submitted by the Commissioner was accepted on consent. Subsequently, at the state of peremptory hearing of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application for rejection of that report submitted by the Survey Passed Commissioner. That application was rejected on contest. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and on going through the materials on record I find that the Survey Passed Commissioner was appointed long time back by an order dated May 10, 2007 and the investigation was held on June 24, 2007. Thereafter, the report submitted by the Commissioner was accepted by the learned Trial Judge by an Order No.66 dated June 27, 2008 on consent. Subsequently, by a petition dated August 18, 2008, the petitioner prayed for rejection of that report contending that there were some mistakes in the case map and the report submitted by the Commissioner and such matters are required to be rectified. So, the prayer was made. After submission of the report, the parties did not prefer to file any such objection and as such, the report was accepted on consent. The learned Trial Judge has, therefore, rightly observed that the report which has been accepted on consent cannot be disturbed in the manner as proposed. So, the prayer was made. After submission of the report, the parties did not prefer to file any such objection and as such, the report was accepted on consent. The learned Trial Judge has, therefore, rightly observed that the report which has been accepted on consent cannot be disturbed in the manner as proposed. Further, as per provisions of Order 26 Rule 10, the report submitted by the Commissioner shall form part of record and it is considered as evidence along with other evidence. For that reason, the report which has been accepted on consent should not also be disturbed after its acceptance on consent. Therefore, I am of the view that the learned Trial Judge has rightly rejected the application for rejection of the report submitted by the learned Commissioner. There is no scope of interference with the impugned order. Accordingly, I am of the view that this application is meritless. It is, therefore, dismissed.