A.N. Varma, J. - (1.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant but find no ground whatever for interfering with the impugned order. The order is one accepting the report submitted by the Court Amin and rejecting the objections filed against the same by the applicant. Learned Counsel contends that the Order XXVI, Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure has not been complied with in this case. It is urged that the notice contemplated under that provision was not given to the defendant -applicant or his counsel regarding construction. I find no merit in this objection. The Court below has passed the impugned order after hearing the learned counsel for the parties on merits of the report and maps prepared by the Court Amin. There is nothing to indicate that the defendant -applicant had pressed his objection in the course of arguments before the Court below regarding the alleged breach of Order XXVI, Rule 18. In any case, the matter having been examined by the Court below on merits and the Court below having found that the report and the map prepared by the Court Amin correctly show the position of the disputed number on the spot interference would be wholly unjustified with the order. It is a pity that the present suit was instituted in 1976 and it was still not been possible for the Court below to conclude the trial of the same. There does not exist any justification for such an enormous delay in the disposal of the suit, though the delay has also been partially contributed by the fact that the revision has been pending here for the last three years. Such interference with the trial of the suit or its progress results in great injustice to the parties. Our entire system of administration of justice stands exposed to the criticism on account of delays and interference at such a stage. I do venture to think that except in extreme cases where they may be a possibility of irreparable loss been occasioned if the Court does not intervene immediately, we should be slow in interfering with the orders concerned only with the confirmation or rejection of reports submitted by the Commission in the course of trial of a suit. For, if the trial Court wrongly confirms a report and the map submitted by the Court Commissioner, the error can be rectified in appeal against the ultimate decree instead of rushing to the Court by way of a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure the result of which is that the proceedings and progress of the suit stand stalled for years on end. There is no merit in this revision and the same is dismissed with costs.;