CRP 199/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE BP KATAKEY Heard Ms Thakuria, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner, by the present petition, has challenged the order dated 20.4.201 0 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. IV, Kamrup, Guwahati i n Misc. (J) Case No. 151/2010 arising out of T.Ex. No. 1/2010, whereby and where under the learned Munsiff directed issuance of commission for the purpose of dec iding the application filed by the present respondents under Order 21 Rule 99, 1 00 and 101 of the CPC. It appears that pursuant to the decree passed in Title Suit No. 154/2009 the pos session of certain land was handed over to the present petitioner in execution p roceeding being Title Execution case No. 1/2010. In the said execution proceedin g the present respondent filed an application under Order 21 Rule 99, 100 and 10 1 CPC praying for restoration of the possession contending inter alia that in ex ecution of the aforesaid decree passed he has been dispossessed from his land th ough the decree was not in respect of the land under his possession. The said ap plication has been registered and numbered as Misc. (J) Case No. 151/2010. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the ap plication under Order 21 Rule 99, 100 and 101 CPC for restoration is to be consi dered after recording of the evidence the learned court below ought not to have directed issuance of commission as has been done in the instant case. It appears from the impugned order dated 20.4.2010 that the learned court below for the reasons recorded therein thought it fit to appoint commission which acco rding to the learned court below would facilitate adjudication of the dispute ra ised by the present respondent. In the said order it has not been indicated that the said proceeding would be decided solely on the basis of such report of the commission for which the case was fixed on 19.5.2010. Order 21 Rule 99 Sub Rule 2 provides that when any application is filed, the cou rt shall proceed to adjudicate the application in accordance to the provisions c ontained under Rule 100 and 101 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned court b elow, therefore, naturally will adjudicate the same and not decide the petition solely on the basis of the survey report. The apprehension of the petitioner is therefore, in my considered view is unfounded. The contention of the petitioner that before affording opportunities to the parties to substantiate their respect ive claim the commission ought not to be issued cannot be accepted as the learne d court below for the reasons recorded thought it fit and proper to issue the co mmission as to facilitate adjudication of the proceeding. The learned court belo w will naturally proceed to adjudicate the said application filed by the respond ent in accordance to Order 21 Rule 99, 100 and 101 CPC. In view of the above, the revision petition is disposed of. No cost.