ORDER 27.8.2013 – Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. In this writ petition, the order dated 19.07.2013 passed in Title Suit No. 62 of 1988 of the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kendrapara is in question. The present opposite party No. 1 filed a suit for declaration of right, title and interest and also for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. Before the trial commenced, the plaintiff filed application for deputing a survey knowing commissioner to measure the suit land and to answer the following question : “Whether the suit land appertaining to sebak plot No. 160 (Hal Plot Nos. 190 and 193) or not.” A report was submitted by the survey knowing commissioner and the same was accepted by the Court. Thereafter, both the parties led evidence. After closure of evidence on both the sides at the stage of argument, the defendant filed petition for appointment of survey knowing commissioner for local inspection. In the said petition, the defendant prayed the lower Court to issue a writ to determine whether any space remains on the northern side and eastern side of plot No. 160 (sabak khata nos. 131). The learned Civil Judge after elaborate discussion on the fact held that a second commissioner need not be deputed for answering the self-same question, for which the first survey knowing commissioner was deputed. The question which the defendant seeks to clarification by filing the second petition has been covered by the first commissioner. In this connection, the learned counsel for the opposite parties relies on the reported case of Kunhi Kutti Ali and another v. Muhammad Haji (died) and other, AIR 1931 Madras 73, wherein the Madras High Court held that lower Court should not have issued two separate commissions to deal with one and same subject and to treat the reports of both commissioners as evidence in the case. The exact circumstance in which he came to issue second commission do not appear from the record placed before the Court, but the same commissioner should not be allowed unless the report of the first commissioner was not satisfactory in which case the report of the earlier commissioner should have been wiped out altogether and attention should have been paid to the second commissioner. The High Court of Madras in Kuthiravattath Kongasseri Mokshath Thottamma alias Amma vs. C.S. Subrarnaniyya and another, AIR 1922 Madras 219 has held that ordinarily when the report of a commissioner is objected to, the Court should hear the objection in open Court and decide with the aid of such evidence as it may take whether the valuation should be varied and if so what direction. The Court further held that this is obvious duty of the Court. There may be cases in. which the commissioner has totally misconceived the duty as to render his report and the valuation useless as a basis for a decision. In such cases, no doubt, a new commissioner may be appointed. This would mean that old report and valuation were superseded. But to regard report and valuation of three commissioners available data from which option of the District Munsif to choose any one of them is to be exercised and opposed every principle governing the Court in such matter. It is trite law that once a commissioner is deputed and he submits a report, which has been objected either party submitting their objection and after consideration the report and objection the Court accepts the same, then to appointment of a second commissioner does not arise, especially when the question to be determined by the Commissioner is the same or similar though it may be couched in different language. Thus, in view of such settled principle of law, this Court comes to the conclusion that the order passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kendrapara on 19.07.2013 in T.S. No. 62/1988 does not suffer from any jurisdictional illegality and, therefore, there is no need to interfere with the same. The writ petition and pending misc. case are, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed.