JUDGMENT : PATHERYA, J. 1. Defendants/Appellants have preferred this appeal challenging the final decree dated 23rd August, 2017 passed in connection with Title Suit No. 148 of 2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Paschim Medinipur. 2. The main grievance of the applicants/appellants is that the final decree was passed by the learned Court below on the basis of the Report of the Advocate Commissioner, which is not in accordance with the preliminary decree. 3. We have gone through the Report of the Advocate Commissioner. Counsel for the respondents also supports the contention of the appellants and is ready and willing that the Report of the Advocate Commissioner be set aside. 4. We are of the opinion that the preliminary decree was passed in 2014 and there is no dispute in respect of the share of the respective parties. The Commissioner’s report is dated 28th July, 2017 and based on the Commissioner’s report the final decree was passed on 23rd August, 2017. From the Order No. 73 dated 23rd August, 2017 it appears that none appeared on behalf of the defendants on the said day i.e., on 23rd August, 2017 and in the presence of the plaintiffs who accepted the Commissioner’s Report, the final decree was passed. This is in violation of the principles of natural justice as admittedly the defendant was not heard nor was given an opportunity to raise objection to the Commissioner’s Report before the final decree was passed on 23rd August, 2017 and it is only for this reason that the order dated 23rd August, 2017 is set aside. The Commissioner’s Report, which is the basis of the said final decree dated 23rd August, 2017 is also set aside. 5. As the parties are agreeable to amicably partition the suit property by metes and bounds according to their respective shares and a partition Commissioner has been appointed, let the said partition be effected as per the decree dated 6th April, 2013. 6. Let the partition Commissioner effect the said partition within six weeks from the order passed this day after giving an opportunity of hearing to all parties. 7. In view of the aforesaid, FAT 369 of 2018 is disposed of. 8. Accordingly, CAN 8197 of 2018 is allowed and the delay of 238 days is condoned. 6. Let the partition Commissioner effect the said partition within six weeks from the order passed this day after giving an opportunity of hearing to all parties. 7. In view of the aforesaid, FAT 369 of 2018 is disposed of. 8. Accordingly, CAN 8197 of 2018 is allowed and the delay of 238 days is condoned. The reason for condoning the said delay is under S. 14 of the 1963 Act, as various proceedings were initiated by the appellants. CAN 8197 of 2018 is accordingly allowed and disposed of. 9. In view of the order passed this day CAN 8212 of 2018 is also disposed of. 10. Although counsel for the respondents seek a direction on the Officer-in-charge of the concerned police station this direction is not necessary in view of the submission made by counsel for the appellants that the appellants namely his clients will co-operate with the Advocate Commissioner. 11. Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis. Madhumati Mitra, J. : I agree.