Defendant in O.S.No.162 of 1980, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram, is the revision petitioner.

.2. A preliminary decree for partition was passed on 23. 1986, to partition plaint A and B Schedule properties. As per the»preliminary decree, plaintiff was given half share in Items 1 to 14, 18 and 19 in ‘A’ Schedule, and one share in ‘B’ Schedule Item 55 and an iron safe. Pursuant to the preliminary decree, an application was filed for the passing of a final decree. On that, a Commissioner was deputed to measure the properties and to recommend the allotment. The Commissioner filed his Report on 211. 1994. Various objections were raised by both parties.

3. By the impugned Order, the lower Court found that the report filed by the Commissioner requires reconsideration, and appointed a new Advocate Commissioner. Certain directions were also given by the impugned Order. The said Order is under challenge in this revision.

4. I do not think that the revision under Sec.115, C.P.C. is maintainable against the impugned Order. Sec.75 of the Code of Civil Procedure which deals with incidental proceedings, empowers the Court to issue commission for various purposes. One suc