Judgment PRASENJIT MANDAL, J. 1. CHALLENGE is to the Order No.154 dated February 28, 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court, Chandernagore in Title Suit No.14 of 2009 thereby accepting the Commissioner's Report on investigation. 2. THE plaintiffs/opposite parties herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.14 of 2009 for declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs. They have contended that the suit property described in schedule 'Ka/I' is the part and parcel of the 'Kha' schedule property which is owned and possessed by the plaintiffs. 3. THE defendant/petitioner herein is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations raised in the plaint. In that suit, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 for holding local investigation and that application was allowed on contest. Accordingly, a Commissioner was appointed and he held the local investigation as per writ. When he submitted his report, the defendant/petitioner herein filed an objection against that report. Upon hearing both the sides and on examining the learned Commissioner, the learned Trial Judge was of the view that there was no ground to reject the report and as such, the report was accepted by the impugned order. Being aggrieved by such an order, the defendant has preferred this application. 4. NOW, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. 5. UPON hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and on going through the materials-on-record, I find that the learned Trial Judge has rightly concluded the matter. 6. THE petitioner filed objection against the report contending, inter alia, that the said report was not proper, legal and the same was not impartial at all. He also contended that the sketch map prepared by the Commissioner was unscientific and that the learned Commissioner did not select the fixed points properly. He also contended that the learned Commissioner did not take into consideration that the building on 'Ka' and 'Kha' schedule property was more than 100 years' old and so, keeping the side space did not arise. Not only that the report submitted by him was beyond the pleadings and his comment on the R.S.R.O.R. being wrong, was beyond the scope of the writ and as such, the report should have been rejected. 7. WHILE dealing with such matters, the learned Commissioner was examined in details. Not only that the report submitted by him was beyond the pleadings and his comment on the R.S.R.O.R. being wrong, was beyond the scope of the writ and as such, the report should have been rejected. 7. WHILE dealing with such matters, the learned Commissioner was examined in details. The report along with connected papers submitted by him has been made part of this application. 8. IT appears from the materials-on-record that the learned Commissioner had taken fixed points upon hearing both the parties and he had recorded that the parties could not show that any better points should be considered as fixed points for doing the survey works. There were old pucca buildings situated on Plot No.422 and 2 fixed points on the north-west and south-west corner of the said pucca building were taken as fixed points for holding his relay works. He had commented that the said fixed points were scientifically connected with the suit lands and that the parties to the suit did not suggest any other better fixed points in the locality for holding the work. This is enough for identification of the suit property and so, the contention of the petitioner in this regard cannot be accepted. The learned Commissioner has described in his report how he had prepared the sketch map. The learned Commissioner had surveyed the position of the dwelling house of the parties and thus, he came to the conclusion that the R.S. map was fully wrong. 9. MR. Hiranmay Bhattacharya, appearing for the petitioner, has pointed out this fact and he has submitted that this finding cannot be supported in view of the fact that there is no such direction in the writ. 10. ANYWAY, if any report is beyond the scope of the writ issued to him that report may well be ignored at the appropriate time. So far as the anomaly of plot No. whether it is 219 or 419, this matter has been clarified and, I think, it need not be discussed more. 11. LASTLY, the learned Trial Judge has observed that the report of the learned Commissioner is merely a piece of evidence and the defendant will be at liberty to adduce other evidence during the trial of the suit. The learned Commissioner has submitted his report on the points mentioned in the writ of commission. 12. 11. LASTLY, the learned Trial Judge has observed that the report of the learned Commissioner is merely a piece of evidence and the defendant will be at liberty to adduce other evidence during the trial of the suit. The learned Commissioner has submitted his report on the points mentioned in the writ of commission. 12. ACCORDING to the provisions of Order 26 Rule 10(2) of the CPC, the report of the learned Commissioner shall form part of the record and since the Commissioner has been examined, the parties are at liberty to use the said report along with other evidence to be adduced by the parties. Accordingly, the learned Trial Judge has rightly observed that the report of the Commissioner is a piece of evidence. The learned Trial Judge has also observed that if the report is accepted, the defendant will not be prejudiced in any way. In consideration of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that there is no scope of interference with the impugned order. 13. THIS application is bereft of merits and is, therefore, dismissed. 14. CONSIDERING the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. 15. URGENT xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.