JUDGMENT Sanjay Kumar; CJ. - The petitioner in this revision petition, filed under Section 115 CPC, is the defendant in Original Suit No. 18 of 2015 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Imphal West-II. She is aggrieved by the order dated 14.10.2019 passed by the Trial Court in Judl. Misc. Case No. 150 of 2018, whereby the Advocate Commissioner who was earlier appointed was directed to make further inquiry into the question framed and submit a report. 2. By order dated 06.01.2020, this Court stayed the operation of the order under revision. The stay order is subsisting as on date. 3. Heard Mr. Juno Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner/ defendant; and Mr. N. Zequeson, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. 4. Parties shall be referred to hereinafter as arrayed in the suit. 5. O.S. No. 18 of 2015 was filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that he had an easementary right over the suit land belonging to the defendant for using the same as an approach road for ingress and egress to his patta homestead land covered by CS Dag No. 1004, measuring 0.58 acre, under Patta No. 295 (New) of Village No. 45 - Sangaipurou, Imphal West. This easementary right was claimed over a portion/strip measuring 15 feet in width situated in the defendant's land in CS Dag No. 1010 and was separately shown as Schedule-C in the suit. 6. The defendant filed her written statement in the suit, wherein she specifically stated that there was an approach road at the southern boundary of the land in CS Dag No. 1010 and 1009 and that the land in CS Dag No. 1004 was connected with the said approach road by a strip of land in CS Dag No. 1008. She claimed that there was a way/approach road which connected the land in CS Dag No. 1004 at the south-eastern corner with Tiddim Road. 7. Thereupon, Judl. Misc. Case No. 25 of 2017 was filed by the plaintiff under Order XXVI Rules 9 & 10 CPC for appointment of a Commission to make a local investigation by inspecting Suit Schedule-C land. Therein, he asserted that it was necessary to verify whether there was an existing pathway in Suit Schedule-C land or whether there was any other road/pathway connecting his homestead land and Tiddim Road. 8. The Trial Court passed order dated 08.01.2018 in Judl. Misc. Therein, he asserted that it was necessary to verify whether there was an existing pathway in Suit Schedule-C land or whether there was any other road/pathway connecting his homestead land and Tiddim Road. 8. The Trial Court passed order dated 08.01.2018 in Judl. Misc. Case No. 25 of 2017 appointing an Advocate Commissioner to carry out local inspection. The order reflects that the Commissioner was to inspect whether there was a path/way in Suit Schedule-C land which connected the homestead land of the plaintiff or not and whether Suit Schedule-A land was used as homestead land or agricultural land. The Commissioner thereupon undertook the exercise and filed a report. Therein, he stated that the Suit Schedule-C land was a low-lying area but there was no sign of the same being used as a path/way to Suit Schedule-A land. He further stated that though Suit Schedule-A land had been converted from agricultural land to homestead land, vide order dated 18.12.2006 of the Commissioner of Revenue, Government of Manipur, there was no sign of construction of any structures thereon. He stated that it was still being used as agricultural land. 9. The Advocate Commissioner was examined before the Trial Court in connection with this report on 07.12.2018. He was specifically asked whether the Suit Schedule-C land which belonged to the defendant was the only path/way connecting Suit Schedule-A land to Tiddim Road and he answered that he did not know whether the Suit Schedule-C land was the only way to Suit Schedule-A land as he had never carried out any inspection in that regard as the Court had not directed him to do so. 10. The plaintiff thereupon filed Judl. Misc. Case No. 150 of 2018 seeking a direction from the Court to the Commissioner to carry out an inspection to ascertain whether there was any common approach road to Suit Schedule-A land from Tiddim Road other than through the Suit Schedule-C land. Thereupon, the Trial Court passed the order under revision, viz., the order dated 14.10.2019. 11. Perusal of the said order reflects that the Trial Court took note of the fact that the Commissioner had been examined on 07.12.2018 and also the question posed to him, referred to supra. Thereupon, the Trial Court passed the order under revision, viz., the order dated 14.10.2019. 11. Perusal of the said order reflects that the Trial Court took note of the fact that the Commissioner had been examined on 07.12.2018 and also the question posed to him, referred to supra. As that was also a crucial aspect of the case, in the light of the suit claim and the averment made by the defendant in her written statement to the effect that there was another approach to the plaintiff's land, the Trial Court observed that it was dissatisfied with the Commissioner's report and exercised jurisdiction under Order XXVI Rule 10(3) CPC by directing further inquiry to be made by the said Commissioner. The further inquiry to be made was into the question framed, that is, 'Whether there is any path/way other than the suit path which connects with the present suit land? If so, describe the path'. This exercise was however stalled owing to the stay granted by this Court in the present revision. 12. It is unfortunate that there are no Civil Rules of Practice in force in the State of Manipur. Ordinarily, such rules would provide the procedure to be followed when a Commission is appointed under Order XXVI CPC. More particularly, the usual practice would be for the counsel for the parties to file work memos, delineating the contours of the exercise to be undertaken by the Commissioner in the course of his inspection. This would save the Court the time and the effort of framing the issue for inspection by the Commissioner in its own terms. 13. In the case on hand, the pleadings and, more particularly, the written statement filed by the defendant and the petition filed in Judl. Misc. Case 25 of 2017 clearly brought out the factual issue that needed determination through the Commission. However, by oversight, the Trial Court seems to have passed the initial order dated 08.01.2018 in Judl. Misc. Case No. 25 of 2017 restricting the scope of inspection only to the question as to whether there was a path/way in Suit Schedule-C land which connected to the plaintiff's homestead land. There was no mention of the Commissioner ascertaining whether there was any other approach to the plaintiff's Suit Schedule-A land. Misc. Case No. 25 of 2017 restricting the scope of inspection only to the question as to whether there was a path/way in Suit Schedule-C land which connected to the plaintiff's homestead land. There was no mention of the Commissioner ascertaining whether there was any other approach to the plaintiff's Suit Schedule-A land. As the Commissioner rightly pointed out that the same was not within the scope of his inspection, when he was examined on 07.12.2018, the plaintiff justifiably filed Judl. Misc. Case No. 150 of 2018 seeking further inspection on this aspect. Perhaps realizing the error committed in the earlier order dated 08.01.2018, the Trial Court expressed dissatisfaction with the report submitted and directed further inquiry in exercise of its power under Order XXVI Rule 10(3) CPC. Order XXVI Rule 10, to the extent relevant, reads as follows: Rule 10. Procedure of Commissioner. (1) . (2) (3) Commissioner may be examined in person - Where the Court is for any reason dissatisfied with the proceedings of the Commissioner, it may direct such further inquiry to be made as it shall think fit. Therefore, as the second inspection by the same Commissioner was occasioned due to the error committed in framing the question at the initial point of time when the Commissioner was appointed, the Trial Court was justified in taking recourse to this provision and directing further inquiry. This Court is not inclined to interfere with such exercise of power by the Trial Court. 14. That being said, it may be noted that the Trial Court again committed an error in framing the question for the second inspection, vide its order dated 14.10.2019 passed in Judl. Misc. Case No. 150 of 2018. It may be noted that the Commissioner's report filed pursuant to the earlier order dated 08.01.2018 specifically recorded that there was no sign of Suit Schedule-C land being used as a path/way to Suit Schedule-A land. That being so, the Trial Court ought not to have referred to a 'suit path' in its order dated 14.10.2019. The very existence of the so-called 'suit path' remains in the realm of uncertainty owing to the Commissioner's report and the same would be subject to further proof and adjudication in the suit proceedings. That being so, the Trial Court ought not to have referred to a 'suit path' in its order dated 14.10.2019. The very existence of the so-called 'suit path' remains in the realm of uncertainty owing to the Commissioner's report and the same would be subject to further proof and adjudication in the suit proceedings. The question framed by the Trial Court is accordingly reframed as follows: 'Whether there is any means of access to Suit Schedule-A land other than through Suit Schedule-C land? If so, give details thereof.' 15. Subject to the above modification, the order dated 14.10.1029 passed in Judl. Misc. Case No. 150 of 2018 stands confirmed. CRP No. 1 of 2020 is disposed of accordingly. Interim order dated 06.01.2020 shall stand vacated. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.