PRASENJIT MANDAL, J.

1. THIS application is directed against the Order No.37 dated January 27, 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Chandannagore in Title Suit No.33 of 1985 thereby rejecting an objection filed by the defendants against the report submitted by the learned Commissioner on investigation.

2. THE predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs/opposite parties herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.33 of 1985 praying for recovery of possession by evicting the original defendants, mandatory injunction and other reliefs. THE original plaintiff filed an application for appointment of a survey passed advocate for local investigation for ascertainment of the location of the plaintiffs land and the thatched room of the defendant. That application was allowed and a Survey passed Pleader Commissioner was appointed to investigate the land in suit on the points mentioned in the application. THE learned Commissioner so appointed in the suit investigated the land in suit and submitted his report accordingly. THE reafter, the defendants/petitioners herein filed an objection against the report of the learned Commissioner and that objection was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred by the defendants.

3. NOW, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.

4. UPON hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the learned Commissioner was directed to survey on four points appearing in the report of the learned Commissioner and these points are mentioned below:-

1) To survey and relay the dag No. 914 of Mauza 'Bhala' and also to locate the Ka and Kha schedule properties.

2) To show the relative position of the thatched room of the defendant in the suit property after drawing a case map.

3) To measure the dag No.914 in a suitable scale and to show the location of the purchased land of the plaintiff in the Ka schedule property and also to show the position of the thatched room of the defendant in the Kha schedule property.

4) To note the local features in which the attention might be drawn to the commissioner by the parties or their advocates at the time of executing the writ of commission.

5. THE learned Commissioner has stated in his report that the investigation work was done by him in presence of both the parties, their respective lawyers, clerks, their men and many villagers. There is no dispute about it. So, the fact remains that the learned Commissioner investigated the plot No.914 only on the points mentioned above in presence of both the parties to the suit.

6. THE learned Commissioner was examined in details and he has described how he surveyed and relayed the said land in suit bearing No.914.

7. IT is not in dispute that the plot No.914 is a big plot and many persons are residing thereon. The learned Commissioner has also stated in his deposition that he did not survey the lands of the other persons who are not parties to the suit.

8. MR. Asit Bhattacharya appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the report submitted by the learned Commissioner is not proper because of the fact that the learned Commissioner did not examine all the persons residing on the land in suit. Even he did not examine the plot owners of the adjacent land. Therefore, the report cannot be accepted. He has contended that under the said circumstances, the survey and relayment of the land in suit is not proper at all. The result is that the learned Commissioner has failed to ascertain the location of the land in suit. He has also contended that the corresponding C.S. and R.S. maps in respect of the land in suit have not been considered and the report is silent in this regard and as such, the report should be rejected. Since, the adjacent lands have not been surveyed, the fixed point as taken by the learned Commissioner, cannot be accepted. He has also contended that the scientific met