CRP 89/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY Heard Mr G Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Saikia, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in Title Suit No.370/2006(Earlier N o.3/2000), by the present petition has sought to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in challenging the order d ated 6th June 2009 passed by learned Munsiff No.1, Cachar at Silchar in the said suit rejecting the prayer of the present petitioner for appointment of another Amin Commission by observing that at that stage the Court is not going into the merit of the report and the parties will get their opportunity to adduce their r espective evidence since the suit was instituted in the year 2000. It appears from the order impugned that the Amin Commission was appointe d at the instance of the present petitioner and a report was submitted. The peti tioner thereafter filed an application for not accepting the report on the groun d that the survey was not conducted in terms of the directions issued by the Cou rt. The said petition, however, has not been accepted by the learned Court below and instead, has held that at that stage the Court was not inclined to go into the merit of the report. The report, however, has been kept on record. Whether the report of the Amin Commission can be accepted or not is a qu estion to be decided by learned Court below at the appropriate stage. No final o rder has been passed by the learned Court below with regard to the acceptance of the report. Learned Court below has only directed the parties to adduce their e vidence. Learned Court below has not totally rejected the prayer of the petition er made in the petition praying for appointment of Amin Commission. After examin ation of witness of the parties, it would always be open to the Court to appoint another Amin Commission, if it is of the opinion that the matter cannot be deci ded in the absence of another Commission. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in passing the order dated 6th June 2009 by the learned Court below requiring interference in exercis e of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above, this revision petition is dismissed. No costs.