'An analysis of the question whether the appointment of a Commission without setting aside the previous report is permissible, leads to a proposition that, generally, if the previous report is found unacceptable, then without setting it aside, a fresh Commission cannot be appointed, but, if the earlier report suffered from some deficiency, which could be supplied by further enquiry and it is not vitiated by serious infirmities, the court is competent to pass appropriate orders resorting to O.XXVI R.10(3) of C.P.C. directing the same Commissioner or appointing a fresh Commissioner, without setting aside the previous report to note the details which have been omitted. There cannot be any doubt as to the competency of the appellate court when it is satisfied from the materials produced that the Commission report is unacceptable or it suffers from some deficiency to pass appropriate orders for setting aside that report or directing a further enquiry to note the details, which were omitted in the earlier report. The endeavour of the court should be to arrive at a correct decision in a given case, and that being so, whether or not, any objection is filed, the acceptability of the Commission report has to be examined and appropriate orders have to be issued for appointment of a fresh Commission if the previous report is found unacceptable, and such power can be exercised by the Appellate Court also in appropriate cases. So, essentially, whether it be the Trial Court or the Appellate Court, when any objection is raised to the acceptability of the report, it has to examine whether the report is liable to be set aside on account of serious infirmities or if it has some deficiency, which does not call for setting it aside as a whole but only for a further enquiry to note the details to cure the deficiencies in the previous report.
