Arijit Banerjee, J.

(1) In the present revisional application the petitioners challenges an order dated 3rd October, 2013 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tehatta, Nadia, in connection with Title Suit No. 97 of 1998 renumbered as Title Suit No. 260 of 2004. By the order impugned the Ld. Trial Judge rejected the local inspection report of an Advocate Commissioner appointed under Order 26 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the application of the plaintiffs.

(2) The facts of the case, shorn of unnecessary details, are that the petitioner no. 1 was the absolute owner of the suit premises which she gifted to the petitioner no. 2. The petitioner no. 2 executed a power of attorney in favour of the petitioner no. 1 since he resides in Gujarat. The petitioners as plaintiffs filed Title Suit No. 97 of 1998 against the opposite parties/defendants in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court at Krishnanagore, Dist. Nadia, claiming declaration of title in respect of the suit property and recovery of possession thereof. The said suit was subsequently transferred to the court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Tehatta, Nadia and renumbered as TS No. 260 of 2004.

(3) In course of hearing of the suit, the defendants had filed an affidavit recording an undertaking that if any construction was made which encroached upon the land of the plaintiffs, the defendants would demolish such construction as per the direction of the Ld. Court.

(4) The plaintiffs filed an application under Order 26 Rule 10 of the CPC for local investigation as to what extent the defendants had encroached on the plaintiffs’ land. On such application an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to conduct investigation and file a report before the Ld. Court. The Commissioner filed a report before the Ld. Court on 22nd June, 2007.

(5) By an order dated 31st July, 2008, the Ld. Trial Court rejected the said report of the Commissioner holding that the same is not a convincing one and further directed the Commissioner to file a fresh report.

(6) In terms of the order dated 31st July, 2008 the Commissioner filed another report before the Ld. Trial Court.

(7) The defendants filed a written objection against the said report of the Commissioner.

(8) By an order dated 3rd October, 2013 the Ld. Trial Court rejected the said second report of the Commissioner also. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiffs have come up to this court by way of the present revisional application. Contention of the petitioners:-

(9) The only point urged by the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that the court does not have the power to reject or set aside the report of a commissioner filed under Order 26 Rule 10 of the CPC. Order 26 Rule 10 provides as follows:-

“R. 10. Procedure of Commissioner.- (1) The Commissioner, after such local inspection as he deems necessary and after reducing to writing the evidence taken by him, shall return such evidence, together with his report in writing signed by him, to the Court.

(2) Report and depositions to be evidence in suit_Commissioner may be examined in person.- The report of the Commissioner and the evidence taken by him (but not the evidence without the report) shall be evidence in the suit and shall form part of the record; but the Court or, with the permission of the Court, any of the parties to the suit may examine the Commissioner personally in open court touching any of the matters referred to him or mentioned in his report, or as to his report, or as to the manner in which he has made the investigation.

(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.”

Ld. Counsel submitted that if the court is not satisfied with the proceedings of the Commissioner, it may direct further enquiry to be made as it shall think fit but the Commissioner’s report cannot be