JUDGMENT D.K. Seth, J.
1. An application under Order XXVI. Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed in Original Suit No. 382 of 1985. The Court Amin was appointed for local inspection. He submitted his report which was accepted by an order dated 18th July, 1999 despite objection filed by the petitioners who were defendants in the suit. Civil Revision No. 190 of 1999 arising thereout was dismissed summarily by an order dated 27th August. 1999 passed by the learned District Judge. Gorakhpur. These orders have since been challenged in this writ petition.
2. Mr. Sheo Nath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners alleges that the Commissioner had prepared a different report which was filed in the Court and was accepted but the report which was prepared on the field book contains the signature of the parties as such the report could not have been accepted.
3. Mr. K. A. Qayyum, learned counsel for the opposite parties on the other hand contends that the acceptance of the report is not a case decided within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code and as such the revision was rightly rejected. According to him, even if the Commissioner's report is accepted, the same is subject to assessment and evaluation as a piece of evidence at the time of hearing on the basis of the material that might come before the Court. The Commissioner may also be examined and all these grounds which are being now taken may be put forth. Therefore, according to him, there is no infirmity in the orders Impugned.
4. I have heard both the learned counsel at length.
5. Order XXVI, Rule 9 of the Code prescribes that the Court may Issue Commission to such persons as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court.
6. In the present case, the Commissioner was appointed, who had inspected the spot in presence of both the parties who had signed on the field book. He had submitted his report. Acceptance of the report is only an acceptance of the report on the record. Evaluation of the report for the purpose of evidence is to be ascertained at the time of hearing on the basis of the material that might come before the Court. The evaluation of the report Is to be made on the basis of examination of the Commissioner and all these points which are now being taken can very well be put forth while the Commissioner is examined. The acceptance of the report does not ipso facto make the report admissible into evidence. It does not determine the evidenciary value of the report. All grounds of objections may be taken with regard to the report even to its admissibility into evidence at the time of hearing. If the alleged report is something other than what was prepared on the spot and differs from the materials recorded in the field book or field note etc. The report is to be reconciled with the field book and the field note. Thus, these are materials which can be decided on evidence. The acceptance of the report, therefore, is not a case decided within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code and as such I do not find any infirmity in the orders Impugned.
7. The writ petition therefore, falls and is accordingly dismissed. No cost.