D/L- 98 22/04/2025 Ct. No.-6 Aritra C.O. 439 of 2025 Sri Kalpana Marick & Ors. Vs. Smt. Padmarani Dalui & Ors. Mr. Haradhan Banerjee Mr. Amitava Paine Mr. Parth Pratim Mukhopadhyay Ms. Manideepa (Paul) Roy .…for the petitioners Mr. Pinaki Ranjan Mitra ….for the O.P. Nos.1 and 2 This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against an order being No.45 dated November 29, 2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amta, Howrah in Title Appeal No.19 of 2017. The petitioners herein filed a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and for recovery of possession. The said suit was decreed by a judgment and decree dated March 28, 2017 by declaring that the ‘Ga’ and ‘Ungha’ schedule property is part and parcel of ‘Ka’ schedule suit property and the same belongs to the plaintiffs/petitioners herein. The investigation report, the sketch map and the enclosures were made part of the decree and the plaintiffs/petitioners herein also got a decree of khas possession in respect of ‘Ga’ and ‘Ungha’ schedule suit property. 2 Mr. Banerjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that from the commissioner’s report it appears that the total area of ‘Ka’ schedule property i.e. plot No. 973 after relayment stands 7268 sq. ft. i.e. 16 shatak 232 sq. ft. Mr. Banerjee further submits that since in the plaint it was stated that the extent of the ‘Ka’ schedule property was 16 shatak, the plaint is required to be amended to bring it in tune with the commissioner’s report. It is well-settled that the commissioner’s report is only a piece of evidence which is to be considered along with other evidences on record. However, after going through the Trial Court’s judgment and decree, this Court finds that the commissioner’s report which mentions the extent of ‘Ka’ schedule property to be 7268 sq. ft. has been made part of the decree. For such reasons this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order by virtue of which the application under Order 6 Rule 17 stood rejected. Accordingly, CO 439 of 2025 stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)