IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4834 of 2011 Between: Nadimpalli Srinivasa Raju ..... PETITIONER AND Karuturi Prabhakara Rao and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4834 of 2011 O R D E R: The petitioner has filed the present revision impugning the order dated 17.06.2011, vide which Smt.Dhana Lakshmi, Advocate was appointed as Advocate-Commissioner by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem in I.A.No.1136/2011 in O.S.No.154/2011. The only ground taken by the learned counsel in the present revision is that the Advocate-Commissioner did not issue any notice to the petitioner/defendant, and as such the petitioner/defendant could not present at the time when the physical features of the ABCD common pathway of plaint plan were being noted down. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the notice said to have been given by the Advocate-Commissioner on 24.06.2011 to contend that no notice was served upon the petitioner/defendant before executing the warrant. The learned counsel further submits that the notice is alleged to have been issued on 24.06.2011 and on the same day itself the inspection was conducted by the Advocate-Commissioner. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs states that he cannot say whether any notice was issued to the petitioner/defendant or not, and it is for the Advocate-Commissioner to clarify the position. A perusal of the notice dated 24.06.2011, it is clear that there are no signatures of either the petitioner/defendant or his counsel in token of receipt of the said notice. Moreover, the warrant, with regard to noting down the physical features of the ABCD common pathway of the plaint plan was also executed on 24.06.2011 itself, without giving any time and opportunity to the respective parties to file their work memos and to be present when the inspection was conducted. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that it is imperative for the Advocate-Commissioner to issue prior notice to both parties, calling for work memos, if any, and directing them to be present as and when the Advocate-Commissioner fixed the date for execution of the warrant. As no notice was given either to the petitioner/defendant or his counsel before executing the warrant, calling for work memos, if any, the report of the Advocate-Commissioner is faulty and hence the same is liable to be set aside. Resultantly, I set aside the report filed by the Advocate-Commissioner dated 08.08.2011, and direct the Advocate- Commissioner Smt.V.Dhana Lakshmi, Advocate, Tadepalligudem to again execute the warrant after issuing prior notice to both parties, calling for work memos, if any, and directing them to be present on the day fixed for execution of the warrant, in terms of the order of the Court below. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA,J Dated: 28.12.2011 Dsr