CRP 7/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HN SARMA Heard Mr. AR Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner. The subject matter of challenge in this revision petition is the impugned order dated 29.11.10 by which the learned trial court rejected the prayer of the peti tioner to examine the Amin Commissioner. The Amin Commission was appointed by th e learned trial court to survey the disputed land. It is submitted by the learne d counsel for the petitioner that against such report no objection has been file d by the petitioner. Under the provision of Order 26 Rule 10 CPC the Commissioner, after such local i nspection as he deems necessary and after reducing to writing the evidence taken by him, shall return such evidence, together with his report in writing signed by him, to the Court. The evidence taken taken by him shall be evidence in the s uit and shall form part of the record. It is also provided that with the permis sion of the court, any of the parties to the suit, may examine the Commissioner personally in open Court touching any of the matter referred to him or mentioned in his report, or as to his report, or as to the manner in which he has made th e investigation. In the instant case, the petitioner has not objected to the rep ort of the Amin Commissioner and in such a situation, the learned trial court wa s well justified in passing the impugned order rejecting the prayer of the petit ioner to examine the Amin Commissioner. Accordingly, I do not find any illegalit y in passing the impugned order. However, if it is found that examination of the Amin Commissioner is necessary f or clarification of certain points on paper produced by him, it is open for th e court to do the needful accordingly to seek such clarification. With the above order, this revision petition stands finally disposed of.