dispossessed from the suit land and there is no prayer either for declaration of right, title, interest over the said land together with recovery of possession. It is further seen that while disposing of the suit, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Titlagarh has taken into consideration the Commissioner’s report. Thus, the contentions of the defendant-respondent to the effect that he has been prejudiced by not affording opportunity to cross-examine the Amin Commissioner has force. The defendant ought to have been given opportunity to file objection and cross-examine the Commissioner, before the same is taken into consideration while answering issue No.4. In addition to the above, when the defendants have categorically denied the title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land the suit would be bad in absence of prayer for declaration of right, title and interest and for recovery of possession. In such an exigency, it is the duty of the Court to see whether Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act will come into play. Further, learned appellate Court while disposing of the case, has given liberty to the plaintiff to amend his plaint suitably to get over the rigors of Section 34 of Specific Relief Act. 7. To summarise, taking into consideration the entire fact situation of the case, learned lower appellate Court has not committed any error in remitting the
