JUDGMENT :

BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY, J.

This application under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against Order dated 30-05-2023 passed by Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 1st Court Katwa, District Purba Bardhaman in Title Suit No 78 of 2015.

2. The ground on which the order of the Learned Trial Court dated 30-05-2023 is assailed before this Court is that the Learned Court without considering the objection filed by the petitioner/defendant and without applying the mind accepted the Inspection Report submitted by the Commissioner.

3. The points of objection of the petitioner/defendant with regard to the Commissioner’s Report may be summed up thus:

A. Ld. Advocate Commissioner has not relayed C.S. settlement map in either field book or case map.

B. The Ld. Advocate Commissioner has not measured the total area of the disputed plots either in C.S. settlement map or L.R. settlement map.

C. The field book measurements are not accurate as taken during field work of the Ld. Advocate commissioner.

D. The notations in the case map as filed by the Ld. Advocate Commissioner do not mention the disputed property which in turn renders the report incomplete.

E. The Ld. Advocate Commissioner has taken plot no. 1027 as a verified plot. However it can be found that there is no such permanent Landmarks in Plot no. 1027. On the contrary there are permanent landmarks in plot no. 580 and 581. However the same have not been taken as fixed points. As such the selection of fixed points by the Ld. Advocate Commissioner is erroneous.

4. The Learned Trial Court while accepting the report of Learned Commissioner was pleased to observe and direct as follows:

‘What the Ld. Advocate finally arrived at was based on scientific survey methods and measurements taken by him and calculated on accepted formula. Accordingly the presumption of correctness will be tilting towards the commission report which is a work of expert.

Thus summing it up, I do not find a single glaring error on the face of the report save mere non fatal and trivial technicalities, which can render the report untenable in the Court of law. In view of the above discussions, I am inclined to accept the report.

Hence, it is ORDERED that the instant report of the local investigations dated 12-06-2019 along with the case map, field book and other enclosures be and the same are accepted and made a part of the record.

Nonetheless both sides are at liberty to raise their averments if any against the commission report at the time of argument. Suit returns to P. Board.’

5. Heard Learned Advocate for the petitioner/defendant and Learned Advocate for the opposite party/plaintiff. Perused the petition filed and materials on record.

6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff/opposite party in the plaint itself had referred to plots of land involved in the suit as C.S. Dag No. 404, corresponding LR. Dag No. 404/994-3 decimal, LR Dag No. 404/6499-4 decimal and LR. Dag No. 404/6531-1 Dec. Therefore from the plaint itself it is crystal clear that the opposite party herein had identified the suit property in C.S. Dag and its corresponding L.R. Dag. However there is no reference to the R.S. Dag in the schedule of the plaint. Learned Advocate further submits that the opposite party in her application under Order 26 Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure had specifically, stated in the first point of local inspection that C.S. and R.S. Map of Mouza Katwa is to be relayed and the placement of the schedule ‘Ka’, ‘Kha’ and ‘GA’ of the plaint is to be shown in a scale drawn map. However from the report of the Learned Survey passed Advocate Commissioner it appears that the said Learned Advocate had only relayed R.S. Map with schedule ‘Ka’, ‘Kha’ and ‘Ga’ of the plaint. The said Learned Survey passed Advocate Commissioner further in his report had stated that he had enlarged the corresponding portion of the suit plot as per R.S. Map. Learned Advocate also submits that from the report itself it is very