ORDER : SUDIP AHLUWALIA, J. 1. This revisional application is directed against the order No. 92 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Islampur on 14th March, 2013 in Partition Suit No. 74 of 2007 of his court. 2. The background of the matter is that the plaintiff/opposite party No. 1 had filed the aforesaid suit for partition originally against some defendants including the present petitioner, which was ultimately decreed in his favour by the judgment delivered on 20th December, 2008 followed by its decree drawn up three days later. A Partition Commissioner was appointed by the learned court below after the parties had been unable to amicably come to a settlement on the basis of the preliminary decree. The learned Commissioner submitted his report, which was objected to on behalf of the present petitioner. Certain observations made in the said report were heavily stressed upon by the petitioner/defendant in his application of objections. The foremost emphasis was on a noting of the learned Commissioner to the effect that he had found one Mahabir Yadav to be in possession of some portion of the disputed suit land in spite of not being a party to the suit. In this manner the basic validity of the Commission's exercise was sought to be impeached on behalf of the defendant/petitioner on the premise that the Commissioner's findings were totally in contradiction of the original plaint case itself. 3. The petitioner along with this application had filed a copy of the Commissioner's report but on seeing the same carefully it is now established that this is an incomplete report contained in pages 38 to 41. 4. The plaintiff/opposite party from his side has placed on record separately the Commissioner's report which goes to show that three separate sheets from the Commissioner's Field Book depicting the areas found to be under occupation of various parties, which were also part of his original report had not been annexed by the petitioner herein. 5. It has further been brought to the notice of this court that the plaintiff/opposite party on 5th August, 2008 had also filed an application for addition of certain other parties including Mahabir Yadav, who were allegedly stated to be in occupation of various portions of the disputed land, which was ostensibly allowed by the learned Trial Court. 6. 5. It has further been brought to the notice of this court that the plaintiff/opposite party on 5th August, 2008 had also filed an application for addition of certain other parties including Mahabir Yadav, who were allegedly stated to be in occupation of various portions of the disputed land, which was ostensibly allowed by the learned Trial Court. 6. However, these facts do not mention in the contested judgment, and the decree in question also appears to have been mechanically drawn up on the basis of the plaint as originally filed. Apparently for these reasons the learned Commissioner was also not aware about the addition of parties during pendency of the suit and therefore came to the observation that some persons such as Mahabir Yadav who were not parties were found to be in possession. 7. It is however, seen on a careful perusal of the complete Commissioner's report filed on behalf of the opposite party today that a sketch map on running page 5 which is contained in the first Field Book of learned Commissioner was drawn up in which the areas found to be under occupation of various parties (including added ones) were depicted. 8. Learned advocate for the opposite party in all fairness submits that undoubtedly the Commissioner's report as submitted in ignorance of material facts such as addition of parties would stand to be terribly vitiated. At the same time, however, he emphasizes that in case such report is rejected in toto then the actual possession picture as depicted by the learned Commissioner could stand to be compromised or otherwise tampered with in case a second inspector is conducted. 9. Taking into account this submission raised on behalf of the opposite party, the overall observation of this court is that while the Commissioner's report as submitted in the learned court below is untenable for the reasons already mentioned above, still some cognizance of the factual position found to exist on the ground, would need to be taken at an appropriate stage when the matter is to be finally decided. 10. With the above observations, the revisional application is ordered to be allowed after setting aside the Commissioner's report submitted in the learned court below. 11. 10. With the above observations, the revisional application is ordered to be allowed after setting aside the Commissioner's report submitted in the learned court below. 11. The learned Trial Judge is now requested to have a fresh local inspection to be conducted at the locale after complete new copies of the corrected pleadings and decree are supplied to the learned Commissioner, who while conducting his commission will make specific observations on the correctness of the measurements of the areas occupied by various persons as depicted in Field Book No. I of the previous Commissioner's report. Further, the learned court below is also requested to try and endeavor to entrust the matter of commission to any person qualified in Survey matters, or otherwise well versed in civil litigation. 12. No order as to costs. 13. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, will be made available to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.