Court No. 6 (265719) 17.08.2026 (AD 11) (S. Banerjee) CO 2570 of 2026 Aurn Kumar Keshari Vs. Rajywswari Chowdhury & Ors. Mr. Kushal Chatterjee Mr. Saikat Chatterjee …for the petitioner This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against an order dated September 22, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), 2nd Court at Rampurhat, Birbhum in Title Suit No. 111 of 2006. By the order impugned, the report of the investigating Commissioner dated July 14, 2025 was provisionally accepted. Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the said report could not have been accepted without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to file a written objection against the same. He further submits that the earlier order appointing the Commissioner was recalled and subsequently by the impugned order the order dated July 7, 2025 has been recalled. 2 Record reveals that by an order dated July 7, 2025 the order being no. 82 dated August 14, 2019 was recalled. Thereafter an application for recalling of the said order was filed and the learned trial judge by the order impugned has recalled the earlier order dated July 7, 2025. The effect of recalling of the order dated July 7, 2025, by necessary implication, revives the order appointing the Commissioner. It is not in dispute that in the meantime the Commissioner who was appointed by the order being no. 82 dated August 14, 2019, has expired and thereafter only the name of the new Commissioner has been substituted in place and stead of the earlier Commissioner who had passed away. Mr. Chatterjee would vehemently contend that the said report could not have been accepted without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to file any written objection thereto. At this stage it would be relevant to take note of the provision of Order 26 rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code which states 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 3 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. Thus, on a bare reading of the said provision it is evident that the report of the Commissioner and the evidence taken by him automatically forms part of the report and shall be an evidence in the suit. By the order impugned, the learned trial judge has provisionally accepted the said report. It would be open to the petitioner to approach the learned trial judge, if he wants to cross-examine the Commissioner and if such an application is filed, the learned trial judge shall consider the same on its merit after affording an opportunity of hearing to the opposite-parties. With the above observations this civil revisional application stands disposed of without, however, any order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)