After about more than a year of submission of such Commission Report, plaintiff in Original Suit No. 136 of 1993 namely Vibhuti Narayan Yadav had filed certain objections on 05.02.1999 which are available on record of Second Appeal No. 5 of 2020 as Annexure-10. Taking this Court through such objections, it is pointed out that since the settlement map was not available before the Court, therefore, the courts below should have discarded the Commission Report and in support of his contention reliance has been placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shreepat vs. Rajendra Prasad and Others as reported in JT 2000 (7) SC 379 , wherein referring to provisions contained in Order 26 and noting down a fact that in that case dispute was inter alia in regard to the land contained in Khasra No. 257/3 or Khasra No. 257/1, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that since there was a serious dispute with regard to the area and boundaries of the land in question, especially in regard to its identity, the learned courts below, before decreeing the suit should have got the identity established by issuing a survey commission to locate the plot in dispute and find out whether it formed part of Khasra No. 257/3 or Khasra No. 257/1. Since no survey commission was appointed, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that it resulted in serious miscarriage of justice and consequently allowed the appeal setting aside the orders passed by the
