( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order in IA No. 91 of 1999 in OS No. 105 of 1991 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at Saroornagar allowing the application filed by the 1st defendant under Order 26, Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of a Surveyor to measure the land in question. Aggrieved by t he same the present revision is preferred.

( 2 ) EARLIER to the present application a commissioner was appointed in IA No. 1252 of 1997 and on submission of his report the 1st defendant filed its objections. Thereafter the 1st defendant filed the present application for appointment of second commissioner to survey the land in question on the ground that the earlier surveyor has not conducted the survey in accordance with the prescribed norms. The trial Court finding that whenever one of the parties to the suit disputed the earlier survey, it is better to call the survey report from the second surveyor and it will be helpful to the Court for effective conclusion and disposal, held that if second surveyor is appointed, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff and allowed the application appointing the second commissioner.

( 3 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for both parties.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that when the earlier report is pending consideration, a second Commissioner cannot be deputed, and even if there is any defect in the report of the Commissioner, the remedy of the 1st defendant is only to have a supplementary report by issuing the warrant to the same Commissioner. Therefore the order under revision is liable to be set aside.

( 5 ) BY the impugned order the Court below allowed the application appointing the second Commissioner without considering the first commissioner s report and the objections filed thereto.

( 6 ) BEFORE considering the merits of this case, it is better to know the position of law regarding the issue of Commission, and how far the Court will be justified in issuing a second commission. Order 26, Rule 10, CPC, which deals with the procedure for issuance of Commission, says that the report filed by the Commissioner shall be evidence in the case and that the same shall form part of the records. It further allows the parties to examine the Commissioner personally in open Court, touching the matters regarding which reference is made in the report or in respect of matters referred to him or in respect of those matters which were the subject-matter of investigation. Order 26, Rule 10 (3), CPC which relates to the examination of the Commissioner in person, reads thus:"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. "

( 7 ) IT is on the basis of sub-rule (3) of Rule 10 to Order 26, CPC, objections to the Commissioner s report are considered, and the Court lias to pass an order as to whether it is satisfied with the proceedings of the Commissioner or not. The question of issuing a Second Commission is also based on the satisfaction entered by Court. The settled principle of law that until the Court is dissatisfied with the proceedings and report of the Commissioner earlier appointed, it will not be proper to ignore the same and direct even further inquiry, much less the scrapping of the earlier report as a whole and appoint a fresh commission. The power in this behalf is circumscribed by the principles under Order 26, Rule 10 (3), CPC. The power has to be exercised only after the Court below renders a finding that the proceedings and the report of the earlier Commissioner are not satisfactory and there is need for a further enquiry. At any rate, the Court has no jurisdiction to issue a second commission when it has not only not expressed any dissatisfaction about the work of the first Commissioner but has refused to set aside his report.

( 8 ) IN this case, admittedly, ther