THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CRP.No.1394 of 2011 & CRP.No.2516 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: These two revisions are filed by the defendants in O.S.No.6 of 2011 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki. Respondents filed the suit for the relief of declaration of their right to use the passage shown in the plan attached to the plaint and for consequential injunction. Along with the suit, the respondents filed I.A.No.30 of 2011 for ex parte appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note the physical features. I.A. was allowed and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed. The Commissioner proceeded to the site on 22.01.2011 and submitted a report on 27.01.2011. After receiving the notice in I.A., the petitioners entered appearance. After they came to know that the Commissioner visited the site and submitted the report, they filed I.A.No.218 of 2011 with a prayer to set aside the report and I.A.No.219 of 2011 for appointment of another Advocate as Commissioner. The applications were opposed by the respondents. Through common order dated 16.03.2011, the trial Court dismissed both the applications. Hence these two revisions. Heard Sri I.Koti Reddy, learned Counsel for petitioners, and Sri M.S.N.Prasad, learned Counsel for the respondents. The appointment of an Advocate Commissioner at the threshold of the proceedings in a suit for declaration of rights and purported injunction is somewhat extraordinary. Whatever may have been circumstances under which the Commissioner has been appointed, he was required to issue notice to both the parties before proceeding to execute the warrant. The petitioners pleaded that they were not put on notice at all. Though it was urged by the respondents that the Commissioner made an effort to serve notice, the record is silent in this regard. Failure to serve notice on the respondents is sought to be justified on the ground that some of the petitioners were present at the time of the inspection by the Commissioner. In the course of execution of warrant by a Commissioner, both the parties to the proceedings are entitled to submit work memos and that would be possible only when they are put on notice. Failure to issue notice to the petitioners before execution of the warrant has vitiated the report. Though the petitioners filed an application to appoint another Commissioner, this Court is of the view that the Commissioner who has already been appointed can be required to undertake the exercise afresh by issuing notice to both the parties. Hence, the CRP.No.1394 of 2011 is allowed and the report submitted by the Commissioner appointed in I.A.No.30 of 2011 is set aside. He shall submit a fresh report after issuing notice to both the parties and taking into account the work memos, if any that are filed by the parties. CRP.No.2516 of 2011 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Date.01.07.2011 Note:furnish copy by 04.07.2011 bo Usd